Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 10

< 9 November	11 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Sources which are available/have been added are more than sufficient to show notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Elfving

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

A local judge who has absolutely no apparent notability at all. JOJ ^Hutton 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe they have no notability? That is ludicrous and indicates you didnt do any research. Why are you templating me with speedy,prod afd notices instead of talking with me, like a human. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the readers job to do research to determine notability. This should be stated clearly in the article as to why this person is notable enough for an article. And personal attack on me noted.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the contrary, it is in fact the nominator's responsibility to determine notability before nomination. See WP:BEFORE.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo apparent notability of subject. Article states that he is a judge. Judges on their own are not notable. The only link used a reference is a dead link and cannot be verified. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its pretty easy to verify he was a judge; that fact is in law reporters and all over the internet. This bio was linked to from Universal v. Reimerdes between May 2007 until the rewrite a month ago. IMO this bio could be redirected to Universal v. Reimerdes, and it might qualify for deletion under WP:BLP1E. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability should be apparent with what is written in the article. Being a Judge is not notable, by itself. I agree with a redirect, if that is the route you wish to continue with.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not !vote in an AfD you initiated. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:18am • 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Little does one know, that this is not a vote. My comment stands, as it should.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I SUGGEST YOU READ WP:!vote then as you clearly do not undestand what it is. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:34am • 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: The above !vote is by the nominator, duplicating opinion in nomination contrary to WP:AFDFORMAT. I struck it, but was reverted.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since deletion discussions are not votes, but are based on policy, it matters little now does it?--JOJ ^Hutton 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it doe. It's standard practice for the nominator not to !vote on an AfD they initiated, as by starting the initial debate, you've already made your position clear. Plus, you have an inherent conflict of interest being the nominator. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:22am • 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoJ, you should take note of WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to a deletion discussion where it states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per WP:GNG. Whether or not judges are inherently notable, this is a notable judge. He sits in Santa Clara County (CA) and has decided many important cases in tech law, receiving extensive coverage for them. See e.g. ConnectU#Facebook_lawsuits, which Elfving decided at the superior court level (story here). I would usually list more sources here, but in this case, the searches linked to by the Find Sources template above need no tweaking whatsoever to establish notability. Also there is this newsbank search, with 99 hits. This coverage is mostly discussion of his decisions, but it's discussion of them, and not just mention. Since California state superior court judges are elected, WP:POLITICIAN#2, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage, also applies, and the coverage easily satisfies that, even if the lack of biographical information available makes it seem as if the GNG doesn't apply.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are absolutely positively no sources in this article to confirm notability. Saying that there are, without using them in the article is useless. Try improving the article and stating why this judge is notable, "in the article". The only source that IS provided no longer works, and is a broken link. All this article says is that he is a judge. Thats all. Judges are not notable for being judges alone. Only if they sat on major cases. The article doesn't even say that. It needs to say why the subject is notable, not that he is a judge only. If he sat on major cases, then it needs to say so. The article does not pass WP:V, which is one of wikipedias 3 core content policies.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. (WP:BEFORE#D3).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say that sources exist, you did. Even with sources, do these sources confirm notability,and to what extent? Seriously, tell me why this guy is notable. What cases has he sat on that would make him notable? The web links you linked above seem to have a pay wall. Now normally citations, even with a paywall are fine, but you are trying to use them in a deletion discussion, so they are really not very helpful at all. Also, you can't use other wikipedia articles as sources or to confirm notability, per WP:CIRCULAR.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. The subject is documented in works such as The American Bench which indicates that all such judges are notable. Warden (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have huge precedent that not all holders of local judgeships are not notable, and there's no reason given here to show that this local judge is different. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also this judge has presided over cases that have had some significance. Keep in mind he is not a Supreme Court Justice, and as such has not been a judge for headline cases such as Roe v. Wade Jab843 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What cases of significance? Significant to whom? What examples are provided? Article says nothing and is not cited.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK, I have added information and references to the article to show that this judge is highly notable. His rulings have been reported in publications nationwide. I only scratched the surface with the links I added; he has more than 10 pages of links at Google news archive. The article as it existed was a stub, but that is not a reason for deletion; Wikipedia explicitly allows stubs, see WP:STUB. Please note that the subject has been notable all along, independent of whether or not the article demonstrated it. I'm not sure why nominator JoJ rejects the instructions at WP:BEFORE (Before nominating for deletion, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources.") but they do apply. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is about his ruling not himself. See WP:NOTINHERITED. While judges become notable through issuing notable rulings not every judge who does so become notable. The criterion has to be coverage in reliable sources and that is lacking here. There are plenty of things that list his name in the context of his cases, but nothing that discusses him as a person or the body of his work as a judge that we need to create a biographical article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate coverage of his rulings to satisfy specialist notability guidelines if not GNG. I've added more references from reliable sources as the nominator asserts that there are no reliable sources to be found, at all. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:18am • 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, most of the coverage is directed toward the ruling, which in its self is suspect as far as notability goes. At the very least, this should be redirected to the single semi-notable ruling he made.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not looked at the article since the addition of THREE rulings of his that received widespread press coverage? In fact, his role in the others was more prominent than his role in the one ruling that has a Wikipedia entry. There was a lot more coverage about other rulings of his that I could have added, but I thought three was enough to make the point. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - normally, local/county trial judges are not notable, unless they pass WP:GNG. Well, he's a horse of a different color. In this instance, I think he does pass. A quick search of articles ar Google news/scholar finds lots of potential sources, and shows he's decided lots of important intellectual property law cases. For that, he also passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Tree Theology

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

Not accurate, not factual. This was not introduced by Paul. Just lots of opinions about "metaphors" and "possibilities". Igetome (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "endorsed by David H. Stern" in the lead rings alarm bells. Obviously, all Christians would agree witht he use of the metaphor, since it is in the New Testament. It strikes me that this is just a refinement of Supersessionism - that is, almost all supersessionists would agree with the statement that "the cultivated olive tree in Romans 9 - 11 is spiritual Israel, a people consisting of both Jews and Gentiles." This article is just a commentary (and one particular scholar's interpretation) of a biblical passage. But the bottom line is whether the phrase has been recognised in scholarly circles. The Google Books search suggests it hasn't, and is therefore a neologism. St Anselm (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that David H. Stern's reading of this passage is notable. -- 202.124.73.75 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- I also do not like "endorsed". Romans 9-11 is liable to be ignored by gentile christians, becuase it has litlte relevance to them. It is however part of the scriptures. A commentary on it is thus potentially encyclopaedic. The question is whether this is merely one man's opinion (hence a NN WP:NEOlogism, or whether it represents the views of a wide range of Messianic Jews. If it does, it should be kept, but with some cleaning up. However, I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Romans 9–11 are covered in brief at Epistle to the Romans#Assurance of salvation (5-11). I am also out of my comfort zone in judging the article under discussion here, but, if this interpretation is significant, would like to suggest the possible alternatives of expanding the Romans article or creating a spinoff article on these chapters which could outline all significant interpretations. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the general notability standards. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have Dual-covenant theology and Supersessionism. -- 202.124.75.236 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business report writing

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

The article is written like a large how-to guide on writing business reports, riddled with second-person ("your report"), "tips", and questions directed towards the reader. I don't think it can be salvaged in its current state; while it's from 2008, even the oldest revisions have this kind of unencyclopedic writing style. — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains very useful information, could be listed as needing to be wikified, I see no issue with the topic or even the format it is written. Jab843 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to manuals contain plenty of "very useful information" but Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, which is exactly what this article is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to article; reads like a student paper that had to be at least ten pages long. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a student essay, NOT a Wikipedia article. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a student-essay host nor a HOW-TO guide. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article might make a decent page on wikibooks though. JORGENEV 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It appears that consensus on this article has changed (probably as a result of stricter sourcing requirements for BLP's) since 2006. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ulwick

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

Pure self promotion of a non-notable business consultant. Google news shows no substantial coverage of this person or his books apart from a huge number of press releases. The article is unreferenced and the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Editors in previous discussions claimed that his books have won notable awards, but no reliable evidence of such awards has ever been presented. Pburka (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING. Sources associated with subject, so can't establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as article stands today it seems pure self-promoting ADVERT but if references can be found I'd be happy to change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment As it is, the article is on the way to be deleted. However, with two previous non consensus closures, more than two opinions on this matter would be appreciated. --Tone 23:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring additional sourcing, but with a note to at least a little sourcing available through one Computerworld article. [1]. Some of the previous AfD keep rationales appear to have based on an error, conflating book marketing blurbs for "independent reviews". With some additional, truly independent sourcing, I'd be open to revising my opinion, however. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... but keep Outcome-Driven Innovation (his approach to innovation). A quick Google Book search shows many independent mentions; that's the only context he's mentioned in. --Macrakis (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hughes (politician)

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

Single-time candidate that didn't get to nomination stage fails to meet notability criteria: see WP:POLITICIAN --Closeapple (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per my own nomination): Despite the way the article was worded when written, this person is not "currently" a candidate for anything: He was a challenger to Mark Kirk for a party nomination in 2009, and Kirk beat him by something 57% to 19% (3 to 1) in the primary. --Closeapple (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge discussion should be continued on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy movement in the United States

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

There is already a large Occupy Wall St Page, a huge collection of different occupy city articles, an Occupy movement in North America article and an Occupy movement article. Information from here need only be repeated in the last one I mentioned. I move that this should be deleted per overcategorization. (See Wikipedia:Overcategorization) ProfNax (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Occupy movement protest locations--Nowa (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep The "occupy" articles are headed into a mess of overlaps, but by it's title this is high level and broad enough to achieve wp:notability, and this seems like a good title for the broadest article on the topic. I don't think that AFD's is the place/tool to try to organize that mess. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The Occupy Wall Street is already too large to add more information. The Occupy movement article is for world-wide movements. If or as the movement continues to grow this article will become more important. I think it's too soon to make a decision to delete this article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – The "United States" link in the navigation bar for the Occupy movements links to this article. The larger, global list article is very long. It appears that Occupy movement in North America will likely be deleted, per the AfD discussion occurring for that article. Therefore, it makes sense to retain this list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – ~~Changing the title of this article to List of Occupy Protests in the United States would conform to the article's current formatting.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – Changing my !vote to Merge to the more comprehensive List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the article to be more than a list and we are already seeing some prose added so it may be predominantly a list in the short term.. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are running into the problem at the OWS article in that happenings and crimes that are taking place at other sites are being entered at that site. Perhaps in time that article should be devoted to NYC and other information be placed in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is about categorisation of articles not the creation of them. The nominator may be refering to WP:CFORK -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Occupy movement in the United States is a notable topic and there is sufficient material for it. The other articles mentioned by the nominator cannot be used for all the of the information that is applicable to this particular topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the occutards are as notable as they are annoying and entertaining.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain against personal attacks. This is a discussion about keeping article content, not a place for you to make snarky remarks. — Moe ε 11:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. This article does nothing that List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States doesn't already do and the article i linked has over 300 references, the same templates, same links, same photos. — Moe ε 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said "I created the article to be more than a list and we are already seeing some prose added so it may be predominantly a list in the short term." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however as of this writing we have three articles on Wikipedia with the same information repeated. Prose and a list should be added to one page, not spread over three, tripling the work of updating pages for everything. — Moe ε

Comment - Another idea regarding changing this article's title to "List of Occupy Protests in the United States" is that the article would serve users functionally as a list and index of articles already in Wikipedia. Rather than merging all of the separate U.S. occupy articles to this article, if that's the eventual intention, which would make this article very long, change the title and use this as a functional list of links to them. There's already a subsection in the Occupy movement article devoted to the United States here: Occupy movement – United States, which would basically make this article a duplicate of that article and section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea is to merge to the more comprehensive list article I wasn't aware of before, until checking out links posted by other users in this discussion: List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one should be kept in favor of the North America list, since "North America" is way too broad and there aren't any occupy movements outside the U.S. save the two in Canada. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addendum If this article is kept, I strongly suggest a merge with List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States as well... and then a shortening of that article's title because it is way too long, man. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding User:Waywardhorizons !vote above: Note that there are now four articles about Canadian Occupy protests in Wikipedia:

—Occupy Canada • Occupy Regina • Occupy Toronto • Occupy Windsor Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap, you're right. Actually, there are several occupy movements in Canada right now. My mistake. -waywardhorizons (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these AfD nominations for the Occupy articles positively reek of petty politics and POV-pushing. Deterence ^Talk 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This article has almost no content, despite the fact that it has been created two weeks ago. In fact, it has less content than its sub-section on Occupy movement, and much less content if you consider that the chronology of that article is entirely about the U.S. movement. This split is completely redundant. Jim Sukwutput 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added some content to the Occupy movement article and they were moved by some user to here, thus inadvertently making me one of the main contributors to this article. I still insist that we merge the content into the Occupy movement article (or any other suitable article). There is simply no reason for its existence when it has less content than the section it's supposed to originate from. Jim Sukwutput 06:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious break out article from Occupy movement which more than meets GNG.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikipedia has, through its ITN/C debates, consistently decided that Occupy is not notable enough for the front page. This is a fork that is used as a de facto blog. Wiki is not a blog hosting service. There is no encylopedic purpose served. doktorb _words^deeds 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could gamble my life's worth that you would support deleting the Occupy articles and my money will always be 100% safe. Your personal animosity towards everything Occupy is really starting to test WP:AGF. Deterence ^Talk

Reply I have supported the deletion of just two Occupy articles. I have not supported recent nominations for Occupy articles in ITN/C. I cannot see how my stance is testing WP:AFD, whatever point you are making is unclear. My reasons for deleting are within the rules expected of AfD - I am not breaking the rules insofar as IDONTLIKEIT is concerned. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a primary source of information, a blog or a news service. I contend that this Occupy article breaks these rules and should be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well that the Occupy movement is notable. Your opposition to all things Occupy in Wikipedia couldn't be more obviously motivated by petty personal politics if you were wearing a Dick Cheney tie. Deterence ^Talk 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the personal insult in this reply, I can offer no other input into this specific discussion. I will, of course, continue to discuss the issue elsewhere. doktorb _words^deeds 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Deterence has been indefinitely banned for personal attacking other users. Jim Sukwutput 17:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Obvious Keep-- there's just too much info to cover it all on the global page. For that matter, there's too much info to cover it all just on the US page. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see all the "info" you're referring to. The current article has less content than its subsection in the global page. Jim Sukwutput 17:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of info on a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. The fact that the global page has more info than the sibling article can be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tangledorange above. There is too much material for a national article, it has to be done by city and then have first a national list List of Occupy movement protest locations, and then a List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. So you have Occupy movement, then the list of nations, then the list of cities in each nation, then the city articles. There is nothing special for a national article to cover. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is precisely because there are so many articles on state-specific protests that an overview article is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not persuaded of the overcategorisation argument. Global>national>city seems like a perfectly sensible split. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not hurting anything, and the movement is still active. There may be more contributions. When it settles down, this can be re-visited. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument. Things can't feel pain anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There may be some history worth saving, though obviously it is not a very strong search term. I was going to close this as a merge, but really, I don't want to touch this Occupy stuff with a ten-foot pole: it stinks to high heaven and the subject is way too politicized. I actually want to congratulate NorthAmerica on their reasonable commentary here, and I hope that at some point everyone has moved along, away from Wikipedia, and we can merge ALL the individual articles into one big one. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G12 by Nyttend (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Hazardous Substances (Australia)

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

This article is a straight copy of Australian government guidelines. This article is something that Wikipedia is not (a manual, specifically). That is not to say that some form of article relating to this topic area is not valid (Hazardous substances in Australia?), but this is far from being such an article. SFB 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as WP:COPYVIO. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - as one user put it vanispamcruftisement. More than happy to move this to someone's sandbox if asked per DGG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Servers Alive

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

Non-notable software. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, created by an SPA as likely promotional/spam. Dialectric (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement that lacks multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … I was going to put some lipstick on this pig (by replacing the explicit URLs with wikilinks), but it's not worth it. Happy Editing! — 72.75.52.11 (talk · contribs) _{17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's vanispamcruftisement! XD Seriously, I love that word. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Uncertain but rewrite if kept. Has anyone thought of actually looking for reviews? or is everyone here talking on the basis of appearances without concerning themselves with the actual guidelines? There's a medium-length 3rd party review on Techrepublic and a short one from pcmag. There's an interview at wispa, which looks reliable, but I'm unfamiliar with that source. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you, DGG, for looking for and finding sources. Unfortunately, I don't think that they are enough to support an article. So the result is still "delete", but there's a big difference between "delete because we have evaluated the sources and found them wanting" which is a good reason to delete and "delete because the article is sn unsourced puff-piece" which can often be solved by editing, no deletion required. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources currently in the article appear to establish the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan Baan

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

BLP lacking notability. This article has been a stub on here for nearly 2 years. This is a good photographer who takes pictures of things that are really notable and famous. I modestly feel that is not enough for our purposes on WP. There is one good source here, but that is all. I think we need several RS to indicate notability (some will argue even more for BLP). There is a link to an “encyclopedia Britannica” entry that had been created by a contributor (seems similar to the project here). A quick source search did not produce anything convincing to me (some inaugural award of questionable significance and numerous questionable websites). Turqoise127 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per my nomination. Respectfully, Turqoise127 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck this duplicate !vote, as unless a nomination is explicitly listed as procedural, the nominator's opinion is presumed to be delete. ^Bongo_matic 00:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is an in depth article in the NYT as well as another article in Arch Daily, an interview in Design Co and a review of his book in Metropolis Mag. By themselves, these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but they also show that WP:CREATIVE #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure" is met: "Just five years after he took up architectural photography, Mr. Baan is “remaking the genre,”", "one of the preeminent figures documenting the built environment today" "It is this ability to see beyond the standard architecture photographic trope of glorifying built structures as paeans to man’s genius, that makes Baan’s photographs so interesting" etc. Finally, there is a EB article on him - EB is in no way "similar to the project here" and inclusion there is almost certainly an indication that they should be included here. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-known and influential artist whose New York Times profile called him "the most peripatetic architectural photographer in the world as well as one of the most widely published." The evidence already presented (not to mention the additional material mentioned by Smartse) far exceeds any reasonable notability threshold. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just in case anyone is a bit perplexed as to why this was nominated, Turqoise127 has a bit of a history of being pointy and the creator of this article nominated one of Turqoise127's articles a few weeks ago. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate this article due to improper motivations or persuasions. I honestly believe this stub is lacking and does not meet WP:BIO standards. My argument is within the nom. I may be wrong, the community will decide. I do not appreciate an administrator chiming in here and discussing conduct issues from a while ago instead of content issues. I believe it says somewhere in the guidelines that is not to be done at AfD. If one made a bad decision once down the line, they are not immediately guilty of it every single time it happens in the future.Turqoise 127 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The single reference to the NYT in the original stub I created is more than sufficient to pass GNG. It is a full-length article in a "source of record" not about a local topic or a promotional topic that could impeach the independence of the coverage. This nomination is either in bad faith or incredibly ignorant. Given the experience of the nominator, I find the second explanation lacking in credibility, hence the "speedy keep" opinion here (including its imputation of lack of good faith). ^Bongo_matic 01:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the references in use and mentioned above show this person easily passes our notability criteria. Did the nominator even attempt to look for references? LadyofShalott 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you google the subjects name in quotes all you get is extensive photos credited to his name. Notable?Turqoise127 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Is that a rhetorical question? Drmies (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is just crazy notable. Look at who publishes his photos, here and here and here and here and here. This guy would be a keeper even if he weren't written about, given how obviously important he is. Oh, also, this. Damn, he gets more Google Book hits than I do. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is quite obvious how this AfD fared, allow me please the following argument regarding my nomination not being "bad faith"; Drmies, your "crazy notable" "here and here and here" sources are poor. The first is but a picture within a text credited to the subject. The second one I cant even find a mention of him, but admittedly I dont speak french. The third is the time article we discussed already... So it seems you are blowing smoke to create an appearance of sources and importance. Oh, and the Google book hits and news hits are poor too, photos credited to our photographer. I repeat, there is one and only one source, the Times one. If that is enough, so be it. i honestly feel this is not notable; a good photographer.

Secondly, I am happy to see the usual suspects (except for Axiloxos) strong arming the community and exerting their opinions as the law. Strength in numbers. Still. And now two of you are admins. Who was it that said... no injustice will last forever?Turqoise127 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the widespread use of his work in significant publications (including newspapers) is important (though unnecessary in this case given the third-party coverage of the subject that was the basis of the original stub). It is notoriously difficult to find sources about journalists and photojournalists that most people educated about the topic would find (real-world, not Wikipedia) notable. WP:CREATIVE is inadequate to the task for journalists and photojournalists, but actual AfD discussions have reflected this inadequacy and bios on such professionals—even without the coverage "of"—by resulting in "keep".

Keep the faith! Fight injustice! (Don't bother to try to build the encyclopedia!) ^Bongo_matic 04:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! A Google search for '"Iwan Baan" exhibition" demonstrates beyond all doubt that he meets WP:CREATIVE. Here is a solo exhibition that appears to be "significant". ]http://www.floornature.com/architecture-news/news-iwan-baan-and-architecture-photography-6541/ This one] maybe. An award suggesting that the subject is "regarded as an important figure ... by peers" (the receipt of this award was widely covered). At least one other solo exhibition (ACME Los Angeles) is covered, and I hadn't even really started looking. ^Bongo_matic 07:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks. You sure do defend and bludgeon a lot for someone who is sure of notability. Every time I challenge an article you like you seem to respond that "it's notoriously difficult to find sources... bla ...bla" What does that say? Anyhow, please do not tell me "not to try and build the encyclopedia", that's WP:uncivil.Turqoise 127 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Turqoise, we're really all the same person. Check it and you'll see we're never logged in at the same time. Notice also that I didn't comment on bad faith, though, well. Most of all, you miss the point entirely. My sources are fantastic: they are among the most notable publications in the world and they run the guy's photos. It's not as hot as a screenshot of a syllabus on the local Croatian news, but if all those publications run the guy's photos, and of all those books publish them, then, ahem, well, you can bet he's notable. And nominating an article on a subject like that--well, what did you expect to happen? The Lady pointed out WP:BEFORE, and following its guidelines can save you a lot of embarrassment (unfortunately, I speak from experience). But really, since this AfD should result in a speedy keep ASAP, wow that guy is crazy notable! I'm proud of my countryman! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Lady was always an admin already, and she's the nice one. I got it by strong-arming over two hundred otherwise sane people. That you would try to insult me, for a few years now, that's fine--but don't impugn her. Hey, you're welcome to start your own cabal. Or draw some conclusions from the fact that you haven't been able to form one. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was about you and SmartSE. I am not insulting anyone. Nice job defending her honor, though, thats points. Thats the difference between us, kind sir, I dont need to be a part of something to feel important. Groups are for cowards.

You guys have grown meaner over time. What's up, need to talk about it?Turqoise127 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk about the article here. Do you agree notability is now sufficiently established? If no, why?— Racconish^Tk 08:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent sources brought forth by SmartSE that demonstrate notability quite convincingly. Disclosure: I have had occasional pleasant and thought-provoking interactions with Administrator Drmies, for the purpose of improving this wonderful encyclopedia. If that makes me part of a "cabal", then I plead "guilty as charged". As for WP:BEFORE, I revere its recommendations as truly "wise precepts" that every editor here should meditate upon daily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why thank you Cullen. There's a bacon butty in it for you, as a bribe. Seriously, do you ever have where you read one of our articles and you go, "Man, I wish I could do that for a living?" I have that here. "Iwan" is also a really cool name, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Specific treatment by reliable sources, including Britannica. 2 awards (Julius Shulman 2010 DAM Architectural book 2010), 15 books, 3 exhibitions. There is barely an issue of the Architectural Review without pictures from him.— Racconish^Tk 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parental acceptance-rejection theory

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

This user is no longer active. The primary author from the references would like to write a more appropriate page re:PARTheory Rohner Research (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—I notified the nominator on his/her talk page that his/her username may create the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding this nomination, and offered to advise if necessary.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Nominator, what do you mean? This is an article, not a userpage, so there's no user in question who is or is not active. As well, why do you need to have the article deleted if you want to write a new one? It's possible just to do a rewrite. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note—Orange Mike indeffed the nominator. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Parental_acceptance-rejection_theory_and_User:Rohner_Research and User talk:Rohner Research for details.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … 12 of the 15 references are from Rohner, the creator of the theory (hardly "independent"), and 11 are just different pages in the same work. Happy Editing! — 72.75.52.11 (talk · contribs) _{02:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Seacraft

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

No evidence of notability, nothing on Google news. An advertisement by the company claims to have been given an award by Fortune, but an examination of that issue's table of contents reveals that it is a trivial (not non-trivial) mention, and it is still only a source (not sources). If it is not deleted, it needs a complete overhaul at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - A source has been found to demonstrate notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam. Article created in bad faith, seems to be deletable via G11 as is. — Joseph Fox 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Pepper

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

A young man with scant evidence of notability apart from an appearance on Big Brother. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam, where he is more than adequately covered: WP:N WP:1E. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - he is not notable enough for his own article; he is sufficiently covered in the housemates article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as previous editors have said, he lacks notablity to have a full article. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do not delete!sam pepper is so funny!and I love him!follow me on twitter Jeps_Foster or add me on facebook! Jeps foster!(you too sampepper!)sampepper<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.71.96 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per WP:BLP1E, notable only for appearance on Big Brother. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably created in response to this request on Twitter. Sigh. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely created in response to solicitations on Twitter: see [2] [3] [4]. Also, the images uploaded were copyvios and Russavia has removed them from Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect as per above. It is going to be a little snowy in here I would think. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect as above. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the redirect I created, then protect to avoid recreation ;-) –anemone projectors– 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Li

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

Does not meet any criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. If someone disagrees, please state which criterion is met. With regard to WP:GNG, all I see for independent coverage is being in Who's Who. Does anyone think that being in Who's Who satisfies WP:GNG? Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims in the article are insufficient to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Pburka (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the editor that removed the PROD. I did so with the rationale that if the publications in the "listings" section of his CV are accurate, then he probably passes the GNG. For easy reference, I'll include them (minus the - oh, irony - Wikipedia reference) for people to pick apart if they wish. I didn't make any deep analysis regarding the different biographies and their suitability for notability purposes, etc. Here's the list:
1. 2010, 2011 - Marquis’s Who’s Who in America (64th, 65th editions)
2. 2008, 2005 - 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century, International Biographical Centre
3. 2001 - 1000 World Leaders of Scientific Influence, American Biographical Institute
4. 2001 - Who’s Who in the 21st Century, International Biographical Center
5. 1997-2001 - Marquis Who’s Who in the World (14th, 15th, 18th, 19th editions)
6. 1997 - Who’s Who in Chinese Linguistics, Hunan People’s Press, China

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does anyone think that being in Who's Who satisfies WP:GNG? From their websites, it is clear that both Marquis and IBC allow self-nominations and indeed self-written biographies/aka/autobiographies. This is not to cast aspersions on the subject of the article. The point is that being in Who's Who does not seem very notable. According to the Marquis website, 1.4 million people are listed in Marquis's Who's Who. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've just seen that Who's Who and the American Biographical Institute are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability in WP:PROF. I would guess that the International Biographical Centre is the same kind of thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After going through his CV some more, I found that he is the president-elect of the Society for Computers in Psychology, meaning that he passes criterion 6 of WP:PROF. (SCiP officers page) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, is that a "major academic society?" Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't appear to be the biggest society, but they are getting written about to some extent.[5] I will be happy to defer judgement of whether they are "major" or not to someone more familiar with the field than me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's a self-published article, by a former president of the society. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it didn't look self-published to me, but you're right that it's obviously by someone connected with the society (I really should have checked for that, sorry). Still, that's just one article, and there may well be obvious ways to show the society is notable that my cursory search did not find. I'll wait for outside comment on this, I think. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will contend that SCiP is not a major academic society. For instance, their conference in 2010 had 16 presentations and 41 posters (according to [6]). Furthermore, they say that "There were over 60 attendees at this year’s conference" in 2010. SCiP appears to be a subset of folks involved in the Psychonomic Society, since SCiP meetings always appear to precede their annual meeting. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will accept that the SCiP is not a major society, and that that means Li doesn't pass criterion 6 of WP:PROF. I will wait for consensus to develop about the journal he is the joint-chief editor of, and about his H-index, however, before I change my !vote. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to clearly meet WP:ACADEMIC and the GNG, per the sources provided in the article. They're a tenured professor of an important dept. at a major university. Steven Walling • talk 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which criteria of WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG are being met? Please be more specific. Being "a tenured professor of an important dept. at a major university" is not a criterion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterions 3, 4, and 5. Steven Walling • talk 19:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with regard to 3, what is the "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society?" I don't see that in the article. Criterion 4 is moot. I'd like to see the 3rd party source for that--it's not in the article. With regard to 5, the subject of the article does not hold a "named chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor' appointment"--that's just false. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Li's being President-Elect of the Society for Computers in Psychology and one of the four chief editors of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition seems to me to meet our notability requirement. I have added these with refs to the article (Msrasnw (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Li's awards above are not ideal because they are "Who's Who" awards which don't grant academic credibility, and the others are extensive lists of individuals, rather than in-depth coverage required for WP:ACADEMIC. Li's position in SCiP is also unhelpful toward notability, because SCiP does not appear to be a "major academic society." Its attendance at last year's meeting was 60 individuals ([7]), and that they appear to be a subset of individuals from the larger Psychonomic Society. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignoring the Who's who material, which should be removed from the article, he is the editor of the multivolume handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics by Cambridge University press Worldcat. The selection of him to edit such a series shows him an authority in his subject. So does a full professorship at a major research university like Penn State--their criteria for such positions are in fact at least as high as our notability. It's not my subject field, but I am not prepared to second-guess them. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither editing a book or being a full professor at a research university are criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Believe it or not, many professors have edited books and/or work at research universities. By your logic, we just should just upload the Penn State faculty directory into WP. There are 1300 full professors at Penn State! [8] Let's stick to the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, the Who's Who material does not appear in the article, so it can't be removed from the article. I think it's useful to read the article carefully before posting here. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Logical Cowboy. The sources cited do not support notabiliy under either the GNG or WP:PROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment H-index: Has anyone calculated a h-index which is what we often use to assist us in an evaluation of academic notabity. I have done a quick look at Google Scholar and doing "Ping Li" AND Psychology and knocking out the nursing - mental health - teaching ones which I don't think are him - on the first few pages there seem a lot of well cited articles by this Ping Li - I get a H-index of at least 17. I suspect if one were to do this properly it would be higher. A h-index of 17 would seem to me enough! (Msrasnw (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Hi, interesting idea, but why do you think that 17 is "enough?" Do you have a source for that? The WP article on h-index suggests that 18 is a minimum to become a full professor. So 17 is not that special. Admittedly that is for physics. I have no idea whether the number is the same or different for psychology. I randomly chose another psychologist who has a WP article, Leda Cosmides. She has an h-index of 51. Then I randomly chose a psycholinguist, Elena Lieven. She has an h-index of 28. I couldn't find any reason to think that 17 is "enough." Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there have been many debates at Afd about this and there is some precedent eg here for scientist needing a figure of above 15 and humanities much less. I think the basic argument is that some, including me, may think that having 100s of citations to one's work by other people in one's field makes on notable in one's field. I think Ping Li clearly meets this. I don't like the numbers game but for example

Li, P. (1996). Spoken word recognition of code-switched words by Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 757-774.

has been cited 78 times -

Li, P., Zhao, X. and Mac Whinney, B. (2007), Dynamic Self-Organization and Early Lexical Development in Children. Cognitive Science, 31: 581–612.

has been cited 57 times

these seem to me to indicate that lots of fellow academics have noted these works and judged them worthy of citing. H=17 means that there at least 17*17 = 289 citations to his work. This seems a lot of people noting his work enough to cite it.

Anyway Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC))PS: Elena will be pleased to hear she has been randomly chosen as a Psycholinguist and has a high h-score! PPS - the figure I got is just from GS with his name and Psychology (and ignoring those that weren't him) it is quite possible some of his articles were missed as a result of this filter as well as the shortcomings of GS itself.[reply]

Reply: Actually, in the example you gave, the subject of the article had an h-index of 25, and the article was deleted. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: h-index 4 for Vijendra K. Singh: I may be mistaken but my understanding was that his h-index was found to be 4 rather than 25 - hence the deletion - but I was quoting that as place where there was a discussion of the 15 rule was mentioned - not the particular case! That one like, this one was tricky because of the name though. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (GS) H-index at least 23 - using Google Scholar and searching a little more widely I get a min H-index now of 23 - with a combined total of more than 1000 citations, but am pretty sure to have missed some. (For verification a little list of these is here: User:Msrasnw/Ping Li Hindex) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I realise that he is only one of four joint-chief editors of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, rather than the chief editor, but would this not be enough for him to pass criterion 8 of WP:PROF, without us having to worry about his H-index? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that he lists his Wikipedia article and all those who's-who entries on his cv is a bad sign. The citation counts are ok but not totally convincing. And from what I can see SCIP is not a large organization, running what its historians describe as an intimate conference annually. But I think the presidency and the journal co-editorship may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Logical Cowboy. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to King's Heralds. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Seamount

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

No sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly ^hi! 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Under-referencing is a valid concern and one that should be addressed, but it is not of itself a reason for deletion. So long as references can be provided, and Google suggests they can, then there are no WP:V concerns. As it is, the subject appears to be notable in a number of different fields so there is not even a single suitable target for redirection. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King's Heralds. Singing in this gospel quartet appears to be his main achievement, and the great majority of the mentions of him are as a member of the group. The rest is laudable, but hardly noteworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources, or redirect to the King's Heralds. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. I think there's enough group-related references to justify a mention at the group's page, and this then becomes a reasonable search term for a redirect. If more sources become available, this can always be revisited, though I admit the chances of that are low. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, as secondary source coverage of the subject himself, rather than the group, appears largely trivial. --DGaw (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources already exist to support an article even before the formal release of the album. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution (Lamb of God album)

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

Crystal balling on an album that is scheduled to be released next year, based on one source from a less than fully reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are a lot of albums from this band that have popped up recently from the same contributor (obviously in good faith, but the criteria isn't AGF), and I'm not so sure any of them (or the band) passes wp:music. It would be swell if someone who works in that area regularly to look at it, as they would be a better judge than I. The issue with this article/album are more clear. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band is def. notable (the article is a GA, for one). I suspect this album will be notable too. The nominator says "next year", which is true, albeit only it's only January 24. Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Keep, based on the sources I found and added in about 1 minute. Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "I suspect this album will be notable too" is WP:CRYSTALBALL, without sources. As for the other albums, if they have their own article, EACH album has to establish notability on its own, it isn't inherited. Again, I don't know everything about wp:music, but general notability makes that clear, that is why I was asking for someone who deals with wp:music to review all the new album additions, which don't seem to provide notability info. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my other comment? You know, the one about adding sources? This AFD isn't about their other albums, and that has no bearing on this album. Maybe you'd like to list them individually for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I was able to find a handful of sources about Resolution, including Exclaim![9], Noisecreep [10] and a full-page article in the latest issue of Rock Sound [11]. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to pass the notability guideline for albums. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alice series. Redirect: non-notable but a valid search term. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageously Alice

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

Nominating for consensus. Possibly non notable book. Series has a page, with minimal references (including dead). No gnews hits on this book, reading through google did not find any major reviews etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information and resources are minimal on page of the series. The publishing date of this book dates way back. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

being old does not show WP:Notability Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided. The claim that "the publishing date of this book dates way back" seems somewhat exaggerated to me. The book was published in 1997 -- we're not talking about an incunable here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable author whose books typically receive a level of print coverage which more than satisfies the GNG. GNews is inadequate for locating book reviews, but what it shows -- limited NYTimes coverage, attempts to remove the book from libraries, backed up by GBooks results, also strongly signals notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The author is notable but I'm not entirely certain that an article is needed for this book. The trouble with the book banning is that generally all of Naylor's books have been banned in one place or another, the Alice books in particular. Since there's already a page for the series, a mention of the books being banned would probably be most suitable there. There *is* a lot of info about the books being banned, but most of the links I've found talk more about the Alice series as a whole generally being banned with Outrageously Alice being a side mention ala "this is an example of one of the Alice books that have been banned". Then again, being banned is pretty notable and Naylor is one of those authors that I view as being historically significant, but I'll admit a bias since I adore her books. I could really go either way on this. This is pretty much one of those nominations that could fall on either side of the fence. I honestly don't know which way to go on this one. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources, or redirect to author. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alice series. While the book is arguably notable, it makes more sense to create a comprehensive article about the entire series and spin out sections if necessary than make many repetitious articles about each book. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alice series. No evidence the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works independent of it, won an award, or otherwise meets notability criteria per WP:BK. DGaw (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/userfy Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Board

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

Prod removed by an IP without explanation. Magazine with no evidence of notability independent of its founders, no relevant Gnews hits. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've added a little bit to this article to give some grounds of notability. While it's still very much a stub, I think what has been added provides good reason not to remove it. 75.48.78.183 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't see how the references you added can qualify as relevant here. I was unable to find anything but a passing mention of Collapse Board in them. Just because a single article has been cited elsewhere doesn't make a magazine notable. Also, the "slogan" is way too long to qualify as such: it looks more like a mission statement to me (but that is perhaps the magazine's fault, in which case we at Wikipedia will have to live with it). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collapse Board doesn't appear to fulfill the criteria for magazines:

It is not an award-winning magazine.
It is relatively new, so it doesn't have a strong historical purpose or significance.
Although mentioned by one source and quoted by another, I wouldn't say this makes it authoritative in its subject area.
It's not frequently cited (yet).
It's not a significant publication of ethnic or other niche markets (in this case, music criticism).

Furthermore, the citations of the magazine's coverage seems to be limited to events surrounding this one Radiohead album. It'll need to see its cited work expand a little farther than that to earn notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pains of Being Pure At Heart, a very popular indie band, also mentioned an article by Collapse Board, I don't know if that means anything. Here. Should I add that in, would it mean anything? I'm sure it will gain more citations from outside sources in the coming months, that could be a more suitable time to rewrite the article, I guess. 75.48.78.183 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no-- articles written by the magazine itself don't help support its own notability. When it does have those citations and outside recognition that you mentioned, the article can be recreated, but not before that. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. If you don't mind, could you move the article to a subpage of my userpage instead of deleting it? Dotbrodu (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Mikaey. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Curtis

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

Not noteworthy, completely irrelevant to anything anywhere. Nodrogj (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not even asserted. Should be speedied. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an excuse to get the firm's website up here. No notability. Can't see why this is even being discussed. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. Nothing even asserted that would indicate wp:notability. (note that this is not Bill Kurtis with a "k" who is notable) North8000 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bowie

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. Google News and Google Books find some hits with the name but they seem to be about different people. Asilv (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't appear to be mentioned in the first two sources and the third is a 404. Notability definitely NOT established. Article has been around for 3 years so the creators have had plenty of time to do it properly. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Jedick

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see anything that would pass for a reliable source. Notability not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy (I initially nominated this for deletion) I spent 15 mins trying to find anything that could be considered a review or analysis of his work. I failed. This is not a bad article, but it appears to be completely unreference-able and an example of good original research. Sadly, that is not what we are doing here. Suggest moving to creator's userpage in case they wish to personally preserve this for usage elsewhere. SFB 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / userify as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. The consensus below is that sources may well exists but as they have not yet been identified the article is to be sent to the incubator while interested editors look for them. Article will be located at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Michael Alford (artist). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alford (artist)

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

British artist of little apparent notability. Although citations can be found to verify that he traveled to Afghanistan with the Royal Grenadiers, no citations can be found to verify that any notable art came out of this venture. Claims of being a frequent cover artist for various magazines cannot be verified. Claims of awards won can be verified in one case (Primaluce International Trompe L'Oeil Festival), but not in others. Even if verified, the awards themselves seem to be of little note, as nothing can be found online about them. The "Green and Stone" prize appears to refer to a prize awarded by this local art store. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ very new article. Other sources are out there- found this this v quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs)

That is merely a vendor of Alford's work. That hardly denotes notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ - No shortage of Google hits so there must be scope to firm the article up. It's not clear how many, if any, of the sources are truly independent though. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than "keep with the hope that better sources can be found" as Northernhenge has suggested, I would suggest incubation instead. The problem with "keep with the intent to improve" is that the intention to improve is often never realized, and we are left with a poorly sourced article about a subject of questionable notability. In incubation, the article can be worked or not depending on the whims of any editor chooses to take on the task, and the live encyclopedia is not degraded. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment incubation sounds fair. Changing keep "vote". Tbh I hadn't heard of this process before. Thanks for the lesson. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with incubation. I didn't know that process was still in use. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete As G4 by User:Jimfbleak. (NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Raichand

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

WP:NFICT ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comin' Home Newcastle

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

I cannot find any sources to show that this meets WP:NSONG. SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable song. Could probably technically be speedied as I don't see any actual claim to notability in the article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keeps have it. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Lambda Psi

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

Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Single chapter fraternity that hasn't had any significant independent coverage." I contend that this is still valid as there is still only trivial coverage (a passing mention in a article about LGBT at a university overall, obligated listing in student directory, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On its face, the subject strikes me as likely to be notable--its status as the only existing "gender-neutral queer-focused" fraternity distinguishes it from the run of the mill single-chapter frats whose articles are often deleted here. However, Hasteur is correct that there does not seem to be a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. I did find (and added) an article from the University of Southern California's Daily Trojan that has a couple of sentences about this frat in the context of a longer article about a USC student's efforts to start a gay frat there--not an extensive discussion, but it does provide independent verification and shows that this frat is known outside of Santa Cruz.[12] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noteworthy, educational, and has received some good coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage adduced here and in the article itself is not sufficient to support an article on this single chapter fraternity. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and Cirt - this is at least marginally notable, but could use more citations. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Note: The "Attempting to form a chapter" at another university is WP:CRYSTAL in action and inappropriate for us to speculate on. There was a discussion several months ago regarding notability of small chapter count/membership count college-social-organizations. I may be incorrect, but most of them were simple self published sources and no independent claims of notability. Therefore until the subject gets talked about on diverse campuses (outside California) I'm still opposed to this article. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to inorganic nanotube. If anyone thinks more information (besides what Materialscientist added) is worthy of merging, they can use the page history (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COINAPO

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

At first sight, this looks like a solid and well-sourced article. Looking closer, however, there are several problems here. The well-sourced and solid part is the one about inorganic nanotubes, which describes the field that this project works in. None of the sources in this section are actually about the project or even mention it. The salvageable content could perhaps be merged to some other article, but, in any case, does really not belong in this article. There is also an impressively large section on "important achievements" of COINAPO. To judge this properly, one has to know what a COST Action actually is. This is a relatively small grant of somewhere between 100 and 200 k€, with a large number of members (individual researchers from many different institutions all over Europe, generally several dozen). The COST Action finances during a limited number of years meetings of these researchers, perhaps an annual summer school, and a few visits of one researcher (generally students or post-docs) to the lab of another. The COST Action does not support any research directly. In consequence, the "achievements" of this particular COST Action listed here are, at best, achievements of some members of the network, financed by other means. When one takes into account the above considerations, it appears that there are no independent sources covering this project. The best one available is a special issue of a journal, including papers presented at a COINAPO meeting. As explained above, the research presented at such meetings is not financed by COINAPO and, at best, such a COST Action can be compared to a small scientific society, with the important difference that societies generally have a rather long life, whereas COST actions are for a limited period only. In conclusion, COINAPO does not meet WP:GNG or any of our other notability guidelines. The current article is misleading the reader into believing that this is a research consortium funding important research, which it is not. Hence: Delete (and merge any salvageable material on nanotubes to an appropriate article). Crusio (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? It will take a lot of time to review this at the depth that the nominator did and for those issues. I did only a superficial review and the reasons given by the nom appear to be the case. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but some of this content, and specifically, the block of text at COINAPO#Recent facts about inorganic nanotubes and their composites may be worth preserving at inorganic nanotube. I'm really in no position to evaluate it, but at least that much reads like knowledge rather than nonsense. The organization may not be notable, but encyclopedic information about the underlying subject is worth keeping. And they're working with tangible, important stuff, and so couldn't be bothered to devise a clever acronym. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to inorganic nanotube. The COINAPO funding is not notable as explained above, but the nanotube material was merged to the target article [13] by another editor, so the wmf:Terms of use prevent outright deletion of COINAPO for the purpose of preserving copyright attribution of the material written by original editor. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned above, I have merged some material from COINAPO to inorganic nanotube. It did require significant revamping (Crusio is absolutely correct that it seems reasonable upon a brief look, but not after proper reading, and this comment is valid not only for the project part, but for the science part too), and my rewriting was just a quick patch. I tried to take the maximum out of this article, but much material is unpublished work in progress.
There are a few technical solutions to the comment on preservation (redirect, stubbify). Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the merge target. Thank you, nominator, for such a thorough argument; it's been quite a while since I saw such a thorough nomination statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELIOSPHERA

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

Non-notable company. Advertisement page. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 11:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Milkroundabout

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

Does not meet criteria under WP:EVENT. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, numerous reliable sources establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, as original editor of the article, I believe it meets WP:GNG :-) I think there's enough sources, and I'm happy to add a few more that have occurred since the latest Milkroundabout. These I think meet WP:EVENT. Claviere (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic passes WP:GNG, per [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage. Dream Focus 19:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lovell

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

Notability. Encyclopedic content. COI. Reads entirely as though the subject published a blog about himself. No notability established. References appear to be about his home brew. Falcadore (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep with some major revisions. I've never heard of him but he has produced a lot, and apparently won some awards. Sources not related to him are easy to find e.g. here. Delete the beer part (unless there's verification that it's notable) and all the stuff about him at a bar and you have a fine stub. --MonsieurKovacs (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lovell is a multiple ARIA Music Award winning engineer. He has been the sound engineer & producer for a significant number of notable Australian bands. The article is sufficiently well referenced now clearly establishing his notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single ARIA Award win is sufficient notability to keep the article. With three such awards, his numerous production and other works with notable artists his notability is overwhelmingly reinforced.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per shaidar cuebiyar. This article needs attention, however the notability of this article can't be denied. Wiki ian 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding additional comments on the request of Hobit) There have been AfDs in the past where while I have closed the AfD as a delete because of the editors' views within the AfD, my personal bent in reality would have had been to keep the article. This AfD is clearly nothing close to that. I do have to mention that a majority of the editors commenting in this AfD have gotten it spot on that this BLP is based significantly on unreliable sources, those with little editorial oversight, and those with an open non-neutral bent of publishing (right wing/religious...) - and then there are some sources that mention the individual in the passing. In other words, almost none of the sources come up to clear-cut BLP or BIO requirements; using such sources to support a BLP's claim on either GNG or related notability guidelines would go against policy. The comments of editors supporting delete have therefore been accepted by me. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Markell

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines, her bio and claim of writing is from or copied from her own websites Wilbered (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable person. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim of notability. --Kylfingers (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's seen significant reporting from two sides. For example, Mother Jones [18], and "One News Now" [19] and [20]. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know why she's not notable. She would seem to easily (easily) meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, then, why don't you provide some published sources to back up your claims? If she is so notable there should be books, journal articles, etc backing up this article, there are none and all I can find are the self-published variety. Unlike some people, I actually try to find sources before I vote in on a piece, if I can't find any:then I vote, if I can find them, I fix it. So I don't see how this person meets GNG unless being a self-published author and Blogger meets those guidelines. Again, you have what looks like sources in your vote above, why not put on your thinking cap and format them and get them into the article?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi, I feel I did provide sources above (Mother Jones, etc.) Plus there are some sources in the article. It is unclear what issue you have with the sources as you simply say "non-notable". Hobit (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The one's I've seen are selfpublished blogs, the ones listed aren't exactly shitting tiffany cufflinks, either. If you feel what you have is reliable, why not post it in the article? They're not doing any good here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ideally, people would notice the ones here and take them into account when discussing the article. Mother Jones is certainly reliable and I think the other ones I listed are too (though highly biased of course). Hobit (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting response, so you think she's notable, but don't really care enough to attempt to fix the article? Can't say that will change my decision.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine, though I'll point out the deletion discussion is supposed to be about the topic, not the article (WP:DEL). I started this my simply saying that your WP:JNN !vote doesn't seem to hold up given that there are plenty of sources and thus she meets WP:GNG. You've not really addressed that point, which is certainly your right. You didn't say anything about the sources in the article other than that they are "self-published blogs", which I don't actually believe to be true of the sources I've looked at. [21] would imply otherwise for at least the sources I provided. Do you have a reason to believe that they are SP blogs? Can you identify which sources you have doubts about (in the article or provided by me as you wish). Hobit (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reference number 2:Right Wing Watch, is a blog with no editorial oversight. Reference number 3 is a self-written author splash page that should be checked for verifiability. Reference number 4, while a decent source does not support the claim the article makes and really just serves as a source to a quote by Michelle Bachmann on the subject's show. I know amateur MMA fighters with more media coverage than this person based on the sources in the article and even what you have listed. As the article stands, it is a perfect example of a poorly sourced piece. Bare URL's tell the reader jack shit about the context, as well. In the searches I've attempted to find sources for this person all I see are self-published sources and blogs; no other coverage. I recently ran into this with another article for deletion: Jimmy Aikin, a Catholic apologist who is used by the MSM as a source on Catholic Dogma. He's the head of Apologetics for Catholic Answers, appears on EWTN, and many Catholic radio programs. He has authored 2 or 3 books and initially I thought it was a no-brainer...he's notable. However, after I took steps to repair the article all the sources I found were like the ones used here: self-published, or blogs; so I went back and changed my vote. If you can't be bothered to put your money where your mouth is and fix the article with your sources, why should I or anyone else vote to keep it? Seriously.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Humm, you and I both got here because there was an AfD. Are you arguing that anyone who finds sources needs to add them, but those that want to delete don't need to lift a finger? An odd viewpoint. I personally don't care about the subject or the article, I do however see that the subject meets our inclusion guildlines. There are apparently 5 solid sources (1 which you raided no objection to and 4 which clearly discusses the subject even if you don't feel it supports the article as cited) and 3 that I provided... Do you feel that the subject meets the GNG? Do you feel anyone !voting to keep needs to improve the article? I imagine such a restriction would create a lot more deleted articles... Hobit (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's my standard, it may not be wikis and it's obviously not yours. No offense, but I don't believe I've ever seen you edit anything; then again I don't use wiki as a social network so you probably don't see me weighing in on too many discussions. If some troll is shitting over an article I've worked on, I make sure there are reliable sources in there. As for the first source or reference 1, that won't even load up for me..so if you want to keep a stroke tally then mark it null in your ledger. I guess I should have mentioned it, I'll try typing slower (that's a joke, I used to assume people got jokes on here, but apparently some don't and my smilies look like sanskrit to the Europeans). Reference 4 is not a suitable source for this article, it does not support the claim made and what it could source is not represented here. I'm taking your 3 on good faith, but maybe now I'll go and look at them.edited to add OK, the Mother Jones link is similar to the #4 link in the article, it says she interviewed Bachmann. ( Can I get a wiki article about me because I interviewd Ken Shamrock before a fight and another website quoted my interview?) Your number 2 doesn't load, either and I suspect it's the same as #1 in the article. I would never use whatever that third link is because it is not a reliable source, really is that the best you can do? Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and kind of disagree with you on this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't edit a lot of articles, but I do try to hunt down sources. It's what I enjoy. I hope you enjoy the things you do. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hobit's editing pattern is certainly atypical, but still has 854 edits in article space. St Anselm (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Since I do not have access to radio programme broadcast by (or for) her, I cannot judge her notability. HOw widely is she broadcast? How large is the listenership?

Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, the two notability criteria that seem to most closely apply to radio personalities. The article content as written list two markets where her show is broadcast, but despite the size of those markets, that hardly describes significant or notable listenership. Were her show to be carried, for example, by Sirius/XM satellite radio, or have ratings data showing a large market share in the timeslot, that would be prima facie evidence of notability...something that is lacking as the article stands. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:IAR v/r - T P 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Davis (electronic sports player)

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione ^Message 10:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cavanaugh (electronic sports player)

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

non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding no reliable sources that discuss this player. The only references in the article are press releases and the like; not the level of coverage we require. That said, I'm happy to switch to Keep if sources become available. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in RS sources available, such as this ESPN piece (about his team, but speaks about him individually) and this Washington Post blog (or "bog", who names these things?). Although notability isn't inherited, the fact that he is on a team owned by the NBA's Gilbert Arenas means that press is more likely. The Interior (Talk) 15:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of wp:notability. The one reference that looked like a possibility was to a blog type page which this is no longer on. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two refs from above. The Interior (Talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best but even those each just mention him briefly. But I have struck my vote because other sources look like a possibility.

delete nowhere near notable enough.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by ESPN establishes notability. causa sui (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Bay Area News Group--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)(NAC)[reply]

East Bay Tribune

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

planned merger and closing of papers, into this new paper, did not happen as planned. the notability of the planned merge is significant, but not worthy of an article. the events can be documented in the individual papers articles now. (i am the article creator) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible somebody might still search for this title, so I'd suggest a redirect to Bay Area News Group which covers the merger. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i agree, ill do this shortly. please, can someone close this now?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been redirected since 12 November, and the AfD notice was removed. Simply close as redirected, this is unlikely to be recreated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Jayanandvijay

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Jayanandvijay is not credited on Satya Ki Khoj and I find no (non-circular) references on GBooks and no matches on GNews. Fæ (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claimed notability is not verifiable. Nitalake (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you check Hephaestus Books review on him?[22] Or Books LLC's publication on him?[23] Wifione ^Message 10:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Books LLC make most of their books by copying articles out of Wikipedia categories, and this would seem to be no exception - everything listed in the title seems to have come straight out of Category:Jain monks by nationality. I haven't heard of Hephaestus Books before, but that one looks like it might be something similar. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wifione, please be aware of these sort of printed mirrors. See Hephasaestus Books and Books LLC. The fact that you are pointing to these as the best sources you can find is quite a good argument for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Googling Hephaestus Books, and you'll find things like http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=6829 (and possibly worse...). Peridon (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from a widely parroted piece about him opening something or other, there seems little or nothing like a reliable independent source in the first 10 Google search pages (with minuses removing Hephaestus and Wikipedia). The book quoted in the first reference has two hits on the Karlsruhe cataloguing, and the second one has very little for the publisher. Altogether, not a lot going for it. Peridon (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 10:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg "G. Wiz" Wieczorek

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

Non-notable musician with no sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The only things which approximate to sources are a link to discogs and one to bandtoband. Neither of these does any more than give a list of recordings that Wieczorek was involved in, and both are inclusive, indiscriminate sites that require no notability for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lack of sources in the article may be a BLP-PROD rationale, but it doesn't mean he may not be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources does mean a lack of notability under the terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources that exist, yes, but not the mere fact that the article doesn't cite them, i.e., "no sources provided." I alerted the article creator to get some sources in there if they exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy No wp:notability sourcing given. Article is new, and it looks like existence of such might be a possibility but not yet added. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With no effort from article creator to add meaningful sources, and based on my own search, I have no problem with deletion of article in current state.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 10:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. Lane Dossett

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

Just realized I failed to give a reason! Yes, notability and resume, advert, etc. Sorry :) SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been a lawyer for three years. Article is a resume. Nothing in searches to be found or makes him stand out. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls way short of what is needed for a bio of a living person in terms of sourcing. i kan reed (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of participation mainly has prompted this close of no consensus. Had it been a BLP, my decision might have been different. Wifione ^Message 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aussenkehr Desert Extreme Trail Run

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

I question the notability of this event. Happened in 2010 with 28 participants, and apparently again in 2011. There are lots of facebook entries and event announcements but I cannot find independent, reliable coverage. Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for 'Aussenkehr Desert Extreme Trail Run' returns 1400 results - I'm pretty sure that among those sites there must be "independent, reliable coverage". I presume that the perceived lack of notability is not wrapped up in the small number of participants? How many people have done solo crossings of Antarctica or rowed single-handed across the Atlantic? Paul venter (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of forum posts and wikipedia mirrors. Nothing that resembles a reliable source. What do solo crossings have to do with this? -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some reliable sources remain when the forum posts and wikipedia mirrors have been sifted out?.... I think that the post above by Pgallert mentioned 28 participants, implying that the small number made it not notable. Paul venter (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the competition was not my first concern. I just cannot see any reliable sources, only fora, Youtube, Facebook, and so on, and a press statement posted at hundreds of places in the web. The event does not seem to carry any official status (some series that form a grand prix, or an official championship of sorts) that would lend some "inherent notability" to it. --Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources, then please present them, but one cannot assume reliable sources just because google finds results. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Zapinakmine

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

fails WP:BIO also WP:BLP1E applies too. nothing in gnews [24]. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. A google search of his name only brings up references to this article as well as to a brief mention in a book, which only lists him as a brief mention among many other names. There's no reason for this to exist and I can't really see where it would even merit a redirect since there isn't really a page where it'd be appropriate to redirect to. The closest thing would be Russian Mafia but there's many different sects and I just feel that it'd be too broad of a redirect. Too bad there isn't a list of mafia related deaths, this would be perfect for that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete as above. Tokyogirl79 has put it so well I can't add a thing. Just do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim of notability.--Kylfingers (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a player, just a nobody.--Run amok in the country (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybugg

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

Non-notable product, advertising The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. Gnews shows only advertorial coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Croatia–Serbia relations. Black Kite (t) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Serbia in Vukovar

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

fails WP:GNG. consulates are rarely rately notable. nothing in gnews. and a search in google merely reveals its address [25]. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N.--TM 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Croatia–Serbia relations - one would reasonably expect to find the information there. GregorB (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GregorB. There is nothing meaningful to say about the consulate really other than it exists, so the article could easily be replaced with a single sentence in Croatia–Serbia relations. Timbouctou (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Save Consulate General of Afghanistan, Jeddah, Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg, Moldovan Consulate General, Iaşi, Consulate-General of Mongolia in Ulan-Ude, Romanian Consulate General, Bălţi, Romanian Consulate General, Cahul, Consulate-General of Ukraine in Saint Petersburg, Venezuelan Consulate-General, Houston. The consulate has also played a constructive role after reintegration of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia (why it was established and what was his greatest historical role). Consulate now also plays a significant role in the life of Serbs in the region (e.g. participated in organizing the visit of President of Serbia to Vukovar, organized trips for children from the region to Serbia, various minority manifestations)... Because of that, I simply mean that there is no need to delete Article. Eventually, it can be marked as incomplete (and I have intends to amend article in the future-so in this case it would not fit into the proposed article Srbia-Croatia relations). Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Please provide reliable sources to back your claims. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not seem that this is not a reason for keeping the article (...Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid.The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales.When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes...)? While it is true that I'm not too familiar with this part of the rules. Here is a series of articles on the consulate or consulate which was mentioned as an organizer of something or similar http://www.gk-srbije-vukovar.hr/press.html . Unfortunately, the fact is that in a large number of links can no longer enter (It is a daily newspaper, radio stations, TV stations so that eventually was deleted). A local radio station, Radio Borovo have quite a number of articles which mention the Consulate (which is imp. for the part about today's activities). On the Internet you can find the presentation of elementary school in Markušica about trip to Serbia, which was organized by the Consulate. It is probably possible to find another sources (http://www.google.hr/search?q=generalni konzulat republike srbije u vukovaru filetype:pdf&hl=hr&biw=1280&bih=667&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images), but it seems to me that the previous are sufficient. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the consulate website is a primary source so insufficient for establishing notability. Please provide actual evidence of third party coverage not a google search. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is a list of articles published in other media and they are only collected (with the links of which as I said a good part does not work today) on the website of the Consulate. Other sources have the second link (but also only in Serbo-Croatian). --MirkoS18 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, you must specify sources not simply say they exist. 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - obviously. Plenty of coverage in Serbian and Croatian language sources, given the controversy over using the building of the headquarter of the JNA during the battle of Vukovar. Pantherskin (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, you must specify sources not simply say they exist. 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Although it is impractical:
http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/yds/1997/97-12-17.yds.html (YUGOSLAVIA OPENS ITS CONSULAR OFFICE IN VUKOVAR)
http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/yds/1998/98-08-14.yds.html (YUGOSLAVIA SOON TO OPEN CONSULATE GENERAL IN VUKOVAR)
http://www.skac.hr/tekstovi/Vukovar i uskrsli Krist.htm (Consulate building was not damaged in the war)
http://www.gk-srbije-vukovar.hr/press.html (list of articles)
http://www.jutarnji.hr/navijaci-u-vukovaru-pjevali--ubij--ubij-srbina--/244560/ (police guarding the consulate)
http://djakovo.hbk.hr/html/vijesti/2003/vijest_2003-03-01.htm (Bishop report)
http://www.vucafe.org/?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=256 (interview with the consul)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/vijest.php?id=1622 (anniversary celebration of the Erdut Agreement in the presence of the Consul)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/vijest.php?id=1710 (donations Consulate kindergarten in Vukovar)
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2005&mm=09&dd=28&nav_id=177493 (Premiere Screening of film about missing Serbs from Vukovar from war in the presence of the Consul)
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2005&mm=10&dd=21&nav_id=178891 (Vice-Premier of Serbia visit Vukovar)
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2005&mm=10&dd=27&nav_id=179238 (involvement of the Consulate to release detainees)
http://www.poslovni.hr/vijesti/susret-gospodarstvenika-vukovarskosrijemske-zupanije-i-srbije-10733.aspx (cross-border economic cooperation)
http://www.poslovni.hr/vijesti/u-vukovaru-susret-s-predstavnicima-15-tvrtki-iz-krusevca-zajecara-i-jablanickog-okruga-10739.aspx (cross-border economic cooperation)
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1975566,00.html (cross-border economic cooperation)
http://www.vucafe.org/?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1265 (Consul opened a children's park in Vukovar)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/vijest.php?id=2870 (Serbian Vice-Prime Minister in the Serbian Consulate in Vukovar)
http://www.skolica.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25 (Grant to Tesla's day celebration from the Serbian Consulate in Vukovar and the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/vijest.php?id=3140 (Consulate donated costumes)
http://hgk.biznet.hr/hgk/tekst.php?a=b&page=tekst&id=1232 (Business delegation of the Republic of Serbia in Osijek with the Consul)
http://www.virovitica.net/clanak.asp?clanakID=5107 (meet the prefect of Virovitica-Podravina)
http://www.hgk.hr/wps/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cl/.l/hr?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/HGK Web/Vijesti/Najave/Generalni_konzul_Republike_Srbije_u__K_Virovitica_ (meet the prefect of Virovitica-Podravina)
http://www.jutarnji.hr/bomba-na-antifasistickom-spomeniku-u-vocinu/208779/ (throwing bombs at the participants of the commemoration for victims of fascism)
http://www.jutarnji.hr/najveci-odaziv-od-rusenja-milosevica/239551/ (on the elections for Serbian president voted also in Consulate)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/novine/398/04.pdf (New Year's consulate kocert)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/novine/357/03.pdf (Serbian Prime Minister in the Serbian Consulate in Vukovar)
http://www.vukovarske-novine.com/novine/365/12.pdf

The links above constitute a collection of routine coverage, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Yes, the police guard the consulate whenever there's ethnic rioting. Yes, consul opened a children's park. Yes, the consulate was involved in the release of a person detained by the Croatian police. Yes, they mark anniversaries and organize concerts and they issue passports and whenever Serbia's president or prime minister visits Croatia they drop by for a cup of coffee. These are all usual activities of any consulate anywhere and they don't make the consulate itself notable. Besides, in all the examples above the consulate is given only a passing mention. Which one of these could you actually use in the article? Probably none. Timbouctou (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: for the purposes of this discussion, "sources" means those that offer significant coverage, per WP:GNG, not just any sources that mention the subject. On a side note: of three diplomatic missions of Croatia, two appear reasonably notable and have at least some encyclopedic content (Embassy of Croatia, Ottawa, Embassy of Croatia, Washington, D.C.), but the third one does not (Embassy of Croatia in Moscow). GregorB (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That part is wrong comparison by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The first two of course, they are essential (: . But also all the others that you mentioned in the section on the history of consulate (ethnic rioting, cup of coffee when Tadić came-what was not so insignificant event etc.). Donations and similar to the part of today's activities and consulate role in public and minority life in post-war Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. Statement by the President of the SDSS as a cover for the assertion of the importance of the consulate for local Serbs.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging into a section of Croatia–Serbia relations seems to me like a decent compromise solution. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mean that article should not be deleted. However, I do not agree that the article should be moved into a section of Croatia–Serbia relations (article is part of category with that name). Article certainly should be mentioned there, but I noticed that the practice is not to write about all diplomatic missions in deails there but to make special articles about them. In this case (if we merge this article), that article will become very cumbersome (broader topics would be very poorly covered, while this particular case will be described as the rest of article). So, if we take into account the most of us agree that article should not be deleted (we think it needs to be keeped or merged), if we take that there is a practice of writing such individual articles and finally if we consider what should be done to move the entire article in article Croatia–Serbia relations (with its future extensions), I think it is not justified to do anything than keep this article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a section of Croatia-Serbia relations. Both articles are stubs and this one consists of only 3 sentences, so I don't see how the three sentences may cause any imbalance of the relations article, especially since the relations article already mentions the consulate. The consulate may be notable, but the consulate article just says that the consulate is there and that it's operating in five nearest counties which hardly warrants an article on its own.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I plan to amend the article on the basis of the above sources. I also believe that there is no any valid objection to the article. I think that conversation is going in wrong direction since you do not adhered to the usual standards and do not respect the rules, but trying to impose your own will. Also, I think that in a previous talk I give more than sufficient and clear arguments with which every impartial reader can not fail to agree-I proved that topic is covered by sources, we achieved consensus that the Consulate is notable, I showed the relevant comparisons, I pointed out the specifics of the consulate and cover that by sources (it was a lot more than the initial objections on article was). Now it seems to me that there is simply trying of overruling by number. It should be clear that number of "votes" are not a criterion by wikipedia in these type of conversations. I think it's time to bring the only reasonable decision, and that's to keep the article?--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means - expand the article, add notable and verifiable material and no serious objection can be made regardless of any votes or absence/presence of articles on similar topics. Still, I'd prefer to have information added to the relations article as it is very terse. For an example of a good article see German–Japanese relations—it might be used to point direction to where the relations article might develop, as I'm sure there's a lot of material suitable for the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arena baseball

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

The first half of this article, about some variant of baseball, has no secondary sources linked and makes no assertion of notability, i.e. who plays this game, its history, etc. Seems like a case of WP:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day, and in fact the third link off Google strongly indicates this. The second half of this article is a completely unrelated discussion about domed Major League stadiums. Thunderbunny (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches show that real arena baseball games are sometimes played, mainly for kids. However the expression is almost always used about major league games played in a dome, mostly in a derogatory way. There does not seem to be enough information on the real games to write an article, and the other use would not be encyclopedic. Better redirect to "Domed stadium" or whatever. Borock (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arena baseball actually wasn't made up one day, as the Red Sox and the Dodgers played an exhibition game in a small stadium where the foul pole was only at 201 feet. It was dubbed 'Arena Baseball'.[26] But, yeah, I don't think it's notable really. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, yes and no. The article (the first part, anyway) is about a specific variant of baseball, not just simply baseball played in small, enclosed spaces. I doubt the Red Sox/Dodgers game you described involved a rubber ball, had the bases 60 feet apart, or had infielders throwing the ball at runners to get them out. Thunderbunny (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. All that talk about domed stadiums seems like coatracking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any history to this game? Or is it just a hypothetical like you would play in a school P.E. class? If not, delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is about two completely separate things, each of which might potentially be an article, but this is neither. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav Raz

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

Possible autobiography -- once you trim out all the citations to his own papers, there's not much left. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. A person has his notability by his own work and achievements. Commitment ordering (CO) is a revolutionary method which has become a standard solution in many areas of computerized technology, and its utilization increases from day to day. Because its scalability and a mathematical proof that it cannot be bypassed for scalability, it has a lasing value, much beyond its inventor (who is notable for the invention). See some utilization and many external references (patents, and academic articles) in the History of commitment ordering (just saw; another for deletion...) and an important book reference there and in Yoav Raz with an explicit recognition in the importance of CO - [Bernstein and Newcomer 2009]. CO has solved the years old open problem of Global serializability. Only now, after 20 yrs it starts to get recognition (to a great extent thanks to the Wikipedia CO and related articles, I believe). However it has been utilized for years (History). For years it has been hidden due to both academics' misunderstanding (not practitioners) and some Academia politics (Google "yoav raz" for his web site and CO page; I have used it as an informal source a lot). At any case, not a discovery by Dr. Raz to be underestimated. Also his ERROL and Reshaped relational algebra start to get considerable late attention, and I'll not be surprised if shortly utilized beyond his old prototype. Add to this being chief-scientist of the multi-billion EMC Corporation for nine years, and some more practically utilized results of theoretical work he did, and you get a person who meets the notability criteria. I wonder how by just reading the subject article this is not clear. When you write "once you trim out all the references to his own work, there's not much left" it is incorrect. External references exist there about utilization of his work (and many more in History of CO). Please read it more carefully. We should not have being here.

Re autobiography, without revealing here my true identity or commenting if true or false, is this a problem, if it is absolutely accurate? I'm very careful with any fact I write in Wikipedia, carefully reference it by credible sources, and make sure it is accurate. Both scientifically and historically.

Re article's quality: I think it is reasonable, based on my very long readership of many Wikipedia articles (daily). The research sections may be too technical for a bio, as their respective main articles are, but this can be repaired, if needed. Also isolated in sections that can easily be bypassed (beyond headers) when being read. I think the essence is the determinant. Shape and form can be changed as recommended by people who know the Wikipedia guidelines better than me.

--Comps (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy on autobiographies. In short, they are strongly discouraged, especially when advocative or promotional in tone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if this is relevant, no promotional tone is desired in any case. I see only facts, no promotional tone. Pls let me know if you see anything goes beyond the cold facts into promotional tone. Will be toned down. --Comps (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that this article is not really about Raz. It's about CO and related topics. I'm going to attempt to clean the article so you can see what this looks like. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass at removing unnecessarily detailed content from the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article for better judgement. Appreciated. I made a second pass. May need more. I added discussion on the Primary source tag. --Comps (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - (changed to Redirect, see below) this is a major computer scientist, as the WP articles on Commitment ordering and Global serializability should be more than enough to make clear. It does sound like an autobio but while unwise it's not illegal. The basic problem for WP is finding good secondary sources - Raz's many papers are his own best sources, because the topics are technical and he's been extremely good at technical stuff, to the point where, I suspect, nobody else dared say much directly on the topic - though there are many variations on the theme. The topic is infrastructure behind-the-scenes stuff (WP would call it gnoming) so it isn't a headline-maker, it just works really well, solving a knotty problem that caused no end of trouble before Raz came along. If he'd done a worse job he'd have been discussed a lot more... ~~but yes, he's Notable~~.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the same editor wrote Yoav Raz, Commitment ordering, and Global serializability, so using the last two as an argument for the first one doesn't really work. I'm not sure I understand your assertion that he's notable because he's not being talked about.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can determine, the creator of this article is attempting to add this person and their ideas to Wikipedia in a promotional manner. Virtually all of the sources on this article, and a few other articles in which he's mentioned (i.e. Global serializability and such above) are primary sources written by the subject. On this article, the only other sources I saw were presentation notes, which my understanding is do not establish notability. My understanding of the notability guidelines is that he would need to be talked about to be notable, and this just simply shows he's been published. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect facts. Wikipedia articles cannot be sources. The mentioned Wikipedia articles though include many other source (if the article's are not sufficient. See list of 5 external refs from the article's direct refs (that were relevant to the article; many other exist; see links below) on his discussion page. See also links below and note citations data:

Yoav Raz - Research Microsoft

Yoav Raz - Google scholar

Just a single CO patent (out of three; the latest and broadest), Distributed multi-version CO, has a 139 reference count; total citation count including patents, over 1000.

Yoav Raz - Google patents

Yoav Raz - Arnetminer

May be added to article.

--Comps (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources in the articles is that they are written by the subject and thus do not establish notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like an article about him in some prestigious publication? I thought sufficient citation of his Commitment ordering work is sufficient. His MVCO patent > 130 (real world; not in academic count), and some academic paper > 80.

--Comps (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite working in a well-cited area, and one covered well by Google scholar, the citation counts I'm seeing from a GS search are relatively low: an h-index of 7, well below what we usually consider to be enough for WP:PROF#C1. And I don't see evidence that he passes the other WP:PROF criteria. Searching for "commitment ordering" instead of Raz (restricted to papers that cite his to avoid coincidental reuse of the same phrase to mean something else) [27] found enough papers by other people that I think we can justify having an article, but maybe not one as long as we have, and certainly not enough to justify keeping Raz by some kind of WP:INHERITED argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say he does not pass the academic criteria because lack of sufficient total article count? He was not the typical academician, a paper writer. He did not have an academic career though spent some time there, and should not be judge by academic criteria. It is the value of a single small group of articles and patents (which do not count in your criteria above). It does not seem at all he wrote articles for count. It is a clear fact that Commitment ordering is important and notable, and thus its inventor also has notability...

See Caveats WP:PROF#Caveats even in your cited WP:PROF#C1.

Caveats

Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
An academic who is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons.
It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

--Comps (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source below (Bernstein 2009). --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT I've spent/wasted quite a bit of time looking for reliable, independent secondary sources, such as articles in IEEE journals praising Raz, and I can't find any - just a lot of stuff by Raz himself. Since I have no doubt about the importance of Commitment Ordering, I sadly suggest the best thing would be a redirect to that article - Notability is not inherited between articles, so Raz will have to make do with a mention in Commitment ordering, and a redirect of course. I've struck out my earlier !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you efforts. As said, he is not an academic with many publications ("publish or perish"), and Commitment ordering has been utilized substantially in academic publications without referencing it. Out of misunderstanding (see quotations in Global serializability or other reasons. See History of commitment ordering. It is substantially referenced in patents. He should be judged as inventor rather than academic. --Comps (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that Raz's exact invention(s) has been used without exactly referencing them. Regardless of whether this is true or not, this begins to sound more like original research comparing the work of Raz with the applications by others, and is really not appropriate in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for trying to clear up these kinds of misunderstandings. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article does not make any comparison and mentions nothing like this. I say it here in the discussion. Also outlining cited facts and comparing them in relevant context I cannot call research. --Comps (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see comment on a secondary source, as well as a secondary source there below. --Comps (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The viewing statistics of this page (~250-300 per month) are higher than that of the Wikipedia pages of many scientists (see View page statistics in page's Revision history. --Comps (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a valid argument for keeping the article per WP:POPULARPAGE. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for this. But this is not an isolated fact. It is in the context of his work, primarily Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject links to this article from his own website, it is not difficult to understand why its viewing numbers are inflated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, only pages of (movie and similar) stars get multiple hits. Not to underestimate his site or insult, but knowing the realities of web sites, I wonder if the "star" CO page there gets any hits. Maybe some(?) because it is referenced in Wikipedia... --Comps (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: If Commitment ordering is important (any doubts here? it has a lasting important value whenever transactions are used - more and more), then its inventor has sufficient notability for an entry in Wikipedia. --Comps (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! I'm not talking on inheritance here, nor your ref WP:NOTINHERITED talks about disassociation from creation. On the contrary, people ARE notable because of their creation (Science, Art, Tech, etc.). Many people are notable because of a single important invention. Very few are serial inventors of more than one important invention. Raz also has other significant works, not as notable as Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's absolutely covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. A subject is not notable simply through association with another. The authors of works are not automatically notable because the works are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. No association with other (who? he did CO himself) in our case. It is association with what that count. Have you seen a notable invention where it inventor is not notable? Never. Only if somebody else stole it and got the notability.

In your ref:

Notability is inherited

Examples:

Keep She once worked with someone famous – Keeper 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

--Comps (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it really is covered, honestly:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable

You are bludgeoning the issue of notability here by challenging every editor who writes here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A manufacturer of a product, and a parent of a child are not an inventor or artist, the creators of new, original ideas. An essential difference exists between the two categories. The first does not bring direct notability because of the outcome, the second does bring notability, if the creation is notable. This is our world, and Wikipedia.

Regarding bludgeoning, I'm not trying to force any idea on anybody. If you give me reasons that that are incorrect what should I do? Just let you delete the article? If deleted, I want it deleted for the correct reasons. I'm surprised that you bring bludgeoning at all. This is a serious discussion here, and if I bring logical claims about what other claim, please deal with my claims, and do not call it bludgeoning. Basically you say, "if you do not stop, we use the bludgeoning Wikipedia guideline to stop the discussion," which I think improper here, and really upsetting, and counter to the Wikipedia spirit.

--Comps (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the use of "parent" in the original text. It is being used to refer to a parent topic and subordinate topics. It really doesn't matter what the relationship between the topics. Inventor->Invention, Artist->Artwork, Parent->Child, etc. There are exceptions for music, books, and films, but inventions and research is not one of them. Parent topic notability should be established independently. There is some consensus that the many topics discussed in this article are notable. But, the creator of that idea does not appear to have notability independent of these topic. I mean, the article is essentially a rehashing of the other articles (e.g. Commitment ordering, Global serializability ERROL, Two-phase commit protocol and others). The article's content still primarily is focused on explaining the concepts in excruciating detail rather than explaining who Raz is and why he is notable, and that is one fundamental problem with the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You interpret this with a generalization that is contrary to real-world situation, and I ask you, if administrator, and also other administrators that are familiar with the Wikipedia guideline, to check this. The key difference, as I noted, is an original creation (not a baby, though unique) that gets notability: Art composition, Music composition, Mathematical proof of an open problem (we are close now), and invention that solve a major open problem (here; see Global serializability), or provides a unique new useful concept (also here). Is it possible that the creation is noted all over, but no one is credited for it? What about the creator? Does he need to get some prestigious award for it before getting notability? Even if it is well known who invented? Does not make any sense: You are noted for the award, but not for the creation that gave you the award! If you are correct whit your interpretation (which I find hard to believe), I want to escalate it to proper level in Wikipedia and ask for this to be explicitly corrected.

Regarding this article rehashing the Commitment ordering articles: This is incorrect. Especially now after you nicely made it a good short summary (Thanks again!). This is about Yoav Raz. Short info about his bio and a mention of some of his published work, all well referenced. It happened to be that some works are sufficiently interesting to be described in Wikipedia. So, you could rely on them with links. If did not exist in Wikipedia, would it be OK? Does not make sense. He is notable primarily because of the Commitment ordering invention.

--Comps (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re secondary source mentioned:

the following quotation on CO appears in a 2009 book: Philip A. Bernstein, Eric Newcomer (2009): Principles of Transaction Processing, 2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier), June 2009, ISBN 978-1-55860-623-4

Quotations:

"Not all concurrency control algorithms use locks... Three other techniques are timestamp ordering, serialization graph testing, and commit ordering. Timestamp ordering assigns each transaction a timestamp and ensures that conflicting operations execute in timestamp order. Serialization graph testing tracks conflicts and ensures that the serialization graph is acyclic. Commit ordering ensures that conflicting operations are consistent with the relative order in which their transactions commit, which can enable interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms." (quotation from page 145)
"Commit ordering is presented in Raz (1992)." (page 360)

Bold fonts in source

--Comps (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Commitment ordering. I'll keep this brief, since I've argued this above already. Much of this entry is borrowed / paraphrased from other WP entries, but there is a clear connection between the subject and the topic of commitment ordering. As such, some information about the individual's unique contributions to the field should be described there. However, this bio page for the individual that basically contains all the same material as the relevant topic articles does not seem helpful. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a person. Not about Commitment ordering or ERROL or 2PC or B-tree summarized in the research section. It has a lead section with a short bio, it has work chronicle, and it has awards section. To all this you choose to relate to in you comment as not important, as if it is nothing. This is a contempt to the person, to my opinion. The article puts together, summarize the persons highlights from different aspects, including published work with practical use. However, the essence for you is the very short summary (now shorter) of CO (also other summaries with his major published research (with practical use) exist with links to main articles). Of course a connection exists between a person and his research work and notable achievements. It happened that his CO work I have summarized in Wikipedia articles, since I have found it important to expose it to a larger audience, beyond academics familiar with the mathematical language in source articles. So what? Does it make the person redundant and justifies erasing an article about him "because Wikipedia CO papers already exist (and the rest is nothing)"? I think it is a mistaken point of view.

" However, this bio page for the individual that basically contains all the same material as the relevant topic articles does not seem helpful." - helpful for what? What about "work", other research, awards? Is it nothing. It is correct that CO is the main aspect that justifies an article, but all the rest is important to give a broader picture of its inventor.

--Comps (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About Dr. Raz's publications. I got the impression here from some that his published CO articles "are from him," i.e., he is the (single) source, and thus "do not count as a source." I want to make it clear: he is not the source. He is just the author. The source is the prestigious committees of experts that selected his publications into a group of about 10% (from all articles submitted at that time) of accepted for publication articles: The VLDB92, ACM-PODS93, and the IEEE-RIDE93 conferences, and the IPL (94) journal (see refs in Commitment ordering; similarly with his other publications cited in this article and listed on professional sites, like the sites listed somewhere above).

Question: Comps, do you have any conflict of interest (WP:COI) to declare here, such as involvement in selecting, advising on or editing the publications mentioned? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question: "involvement in selecting, advising on or editing the publications mentioned?" - The CO articles were published in the early 1990s. Since then they are tabled in all regular article repositories/sites, and nobody can change this. Nobody can touch and change the articles themselves. So what influence on what can I have? I'm trying to save this article. I see some issues I consider misunderstanding (e.g., Primary source), and try to clarify. If you ask if I was involved in the past in any way in these articles' selection for publication the answer is clearly no. Does this answer? --Comps (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a suspiciously specific denial to me. The question is more: are you a close affiliate of Yoav Raz, such as Raz himself, a co-author, a student, or a relative of him? Because your filibustering here is sure making you appear to be one. Of course, there's no requirement that you answer, and I'm not going to go prying if you don't. But you might consider stepping back and letting the AfD take its course. You've made your points and I don't think further argumentation is going to make your preferred outcome more likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering the same as David. Other conflicts of interest applicable here would also include a working/collaborative or personal relationship with Raz. We are not asking you to identify yourself or anything like that. Having a COI doesn't automatically render the article's content null and void, but it is better to declare your affiliations like this so your contributions to such articles can be scrutinized for unintended bias. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have given all my clarifications about this article by now, and can only start to repeat myself. I wanted to make this comment before I saw these last comments/questions. I got here some new knowledge and insight about processes and criteria, and thank you all for trying to make Wikipedia better. Regarding identity, I have already been asked about it, and discussed it in User talk:Thumperward#Commitment ordering. --Comps (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I disagree with the term "filibustering" here. I commented to the point, and as concise as possible to clarify facts I thought were mistaken, or I disagreed on. Also, my passion here as the initiator and major editor should be obvious. --Comps (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Scrutinizing for possible inaccuracy and bias is always good and encouraged. --Comps (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read the arguments and prolix lawyering above and it's clear that the notability problems discussed there are deal-breakers. Promotional problems are peripheral, but don't help matters. I'll add here only that I checked WoS and found similarly low pubs/cites: h-index = 1. This is an uncontroversial delete. This is my only comment and I'll not respond further to any filibustering that may follow. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As I explained above, no philibustering here, just answers to the point, and I reject this term here. Re Lawyering: Deletion is a formal Wikipedia process and should be taken seriously. It is done subject to the guidelines of Wikipedia, and needs to be done properly and with logic. The reson for deletion must be well explained and understood. If a reason given by anybody does not make sense to me, I have to explain it explicitly. Regarding notability that you checked: The main reason for notability, Commitment ordering, has been misunderstood for years, and to a great extent utilized without connecting it to [[Yoav Raz]. Thus not as much is publicly found, as should be (this situation is changing quickly, and thus a mistake to delete) --Comps (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comps, may I very gently ask you, please, to stop now. You have made your point clearly, many times. Even assuming that Commitment ordering is a notable topic (which I believe), it does not make this article notable also, as there is NO INHERITANCE OF NOTABILITY, however unfortunate you may think that rule. With my best regards Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I have already (above) expressed my wish to stop repeating myself, and I kindly ask you to stop repeating what already has been said about inheritance. This is not a fact, and my interpretation of the guidance was that an inventor enjoys the reputation of his invention. This is the common sense also: Show me please a single important invention that its sole inventor has not enjoyed its reputation. If info that I have not agreed on is not repeated, I promise you I do not repeat my claims. Otherwise I see it as my obligation to have my comment seen. Just a matter of simple fairness. --Comps (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the Wikipedia page for Stapler, you'll notice that none of the people who filed stapler patents have Wikipedia pages. You might argue that's because no one has made them yet, but another interpretation is that none of these individuals have any substantial coverage in secondary sources. I can see why you disagree with WP:NOTINHERITED for inventors, but coverage of the invention and the inventor are different matters, and the latter does not appear to be met here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phrenology#Supposed mental faculties. If the current redirect target is not found appropriate, one could later on take up discussions to change this redirect on relevant talk pages Wifione ^Message 10:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philoprogenitiveness

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

This article is little more than a unsourced dictionary definition. Perhaps we should redirect it to wiktionary:philoprogenitiveness. Chris (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by nominator. It might be just possible to write an article on this subject, but it would be more likely to appear as a paragraph in phrenology. It can always be recreated if someone finds enough material for it. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been lying around for some time, so I don't think it was listed correctly at AfD. I think it's entered correctly now. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be jargon in a fringe field. The real article on the topic would be, maybe, "Parental instinct." Borock (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to phrenology. As far as I know, the word has no use in English outside of phrenology; and a Wiktionary link could be set up there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very reasonable except that the phrenology article doesn't seem to mention philoprogenitiveness. Redirecting there might leave a reader confused and without a clue as to what the word means. I agree that the word doesn't seem to be used outside phrenology. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phrenology#Supposed_mental_faculties where you will now find Philoprogenitiveness as an example mental faculty. (It's all part of the service, here at Wikipedia.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word means love of offspring and we don't seem to have a good article about this yet. While it's easy to mock phrenology, this source indicates that modern psychology hasn't got very far with the topic either: "despite the widespread everyday knowledge that mothers tend to love their children, the very phenomenon of powerful parental love seems to have baffled psychologists at a theoretical level.". It would be worth telling our readers this, if nothing else. Merge the article into the more common name of parental love (which currently redirects to agape - another archaic term), following our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do hesitate to disagree with Warden who is nearly always right (in my limited horizon), but while P. does indeed "mean" parental love, in practice it is just the name of an imagined brain-zone, a 'faculty' in Phrenology, so with deep respect may I say that merging it to the real topic of parental love would be missing the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Dan Barrera, Mitch Chilson, Eric Kelly (fighter), Andy Wang, Honorio Banario, Roy Docyogen, Joe Abouata, Eddie Ng, and Kevin Belingon, and no consensus for the rest. I'm disinclined to delete an article based on this total mess. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters pass WP:MMANOT either. I realize it's a long list, but it seemed better to put them in one list instead of opening many AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that you would nominate lots of other fighters for a different reason than the first. I acknowledge there is a problem with MMA articles on WP, but these articles are not all worth deleting, and many of them should be kept via WP:GNG, even if they may not fulfill WP:MMANOT. I'll list the ones I found some sources that might make them worth keeping. For the rest, I'll strike and support deletion of them due to a lack of reliable sources qualifying them for WP:GNG (i.e. there are either no sources or they a sources with limited coverage, like MMA-fansites and Sherdog), or if there is only one source and it is too short/undetailed per WP:ONESOURCE.

~~Edvin Hebovija~~

Dan Barrera

Found some in-depth coverage of his fight with Ben Saunders in this BuddyTV article.
Barrera's loss against Saunders is also discussed briefly in this ESPN article.
Some biographical information on Barrera and quotations from him about an upcoming fight can also be found here

Mitch Chilson

Chilson's performance in a fight and his biography is covered in decent depth in this ESPN article.
Chilson's reputation as a famous fighter in Singapore is substantiated in this article.
Chilson is the main subject of this Reuters article, which certainly should qualify as in-depth coverage.

~~Sean Alvarez~~

Eric Kelly (fighter)

Kelly's bout with another fighter has some coverage in this article from the Saipan Tribune].
Kelly's biography is also covered in this article by Sports Unlimited and his fighting history is covered in an article here.
Kelly's general reputation as a fighter is also detailed in this Manila Bulletin article.

Andy Wang

BuddyTV conducted an exclusive interview with Wang after his elimination in recent tournament.
Two articles from the Taipei Times focusing on Andy Wang's performance in recent bouts: [28], [29]

~~Mark Sangiao~~

~~Jacob Allman~~

~~Matt Andersen (fighter)~~

Doug Anderson (fighter)

Anderson's position as a co-host on the Discovery Channel show Fight Quest is discussed in detail among several sources: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]

Honorio Banario

Banario is the headliner in several articles, and his bouts and status are discussed in detail by several sources, some of which are already in the article: [36], [37], [38], [39]

~~Dave Huckaba~~

~~Romie Aram~~

~~A Sol Kwon~~

~~Chris Barnett~~

~~Bryan Travers~~

~~Kevin Belingon~~

~~Dominique Robinson~~

~~David Avellan~~

Roy Docyogen

Docyogen is also a headliner of several articles, where his strategy and techniques are discussed: [40], [41].

~~Chad Bannon~~

Chad appears also have a history as a male model and an actor, but he does not reach notability for either of those qualifications, either.

~~Marcelo Guidici~~

Joe Abouata

One in-depth biography piece on Abouata in this article from nj.com.

~~Ben Lagman~~

Starred in an MTV show Bully Beatdown, but that kind of attribution belongs on the show's page. It doesn't merit its own page.

~~Jorge Evangelista~~

Eddie Ng

One in-depth piece from a newsblog via The Independent. The author of the piece seems be a professional writer given that he has done quite a lot of sports coverage for The Independent and elsewhere, so I think this is a viable source per WP:NEWSBLOG.

~~Radeem Rahman~~

~~Daniel Mashamaite~~

~~Soo Chul Kim~~

~~Leandro Issa~~

So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Phew, I'm beat from all those Google searches... I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The following articles, which User:I Jethrobot fortunately took the time to research:

These articles appear to pass WP:GNG.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except redirect Barrera and Wang to their TUF articles None of these fighters meet the requirements at WP:MMANOT and if they're not notable as fighters, then what are the notable for? The articles mentioned above tend to be of the "so and so will be fighting at ..." or "so and so fought at x" type. None of them seem to be the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. They're more of the press release or routine sports reporting variety. Also, Papaursa, would you please make the lists a little shorter next time? Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the references I provided above are not at all like this. None are press releases, and go beyond simple "so and so will fight so and so." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding !vote from User:Mdtemp above: which part of the essay WP:MMANOT are you referring to? Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, I admit I may have gotten carried away with the number of articles listed--sorry. I Jethrobt, I didn't change my reasons--all of the articles are listed because they don't meet WP:MMANOT. The notability section for fighters says they should have "Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization" or "Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations." Those are clear, objective standards, especially when there is a list of top tier organizations given. In addition, WP:MMA says "Should a fighter not fulfil this criteria, it is unlikely that they warrant an article on wikipedia." I looked at some of the references given and I agree with Mdtemp's assessment. For example, when I clicked on the articles for Docyogen I got a "404 error" and a 6 line article covering the results of all 10 fights on the card--hardly substantial coverage "where his strategy and techniques are discussed." The blog on Eddie Ng claimed that after 4 bouts for a small MMA circuit in England, appearing on the undercard of a new organization showed he "is set to become an MMA superstar." The articles on Wang were "Andy Wang prepares for MMA Battle" tonight followed by "Zoro stops Andy Wang". Those sound like exactly like the kinds of articles Mdtemp referred to. Anyway, this comment ran far longer than I'd planned. I'm not going to argue point by point over every fighter--every editor is entitled to their opinion. I simply don't see how any of these fighters meet the objective criteria given at WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You decided to nominate all of them for deletion. You can't just point to a few and say "these are no good" and then assume that the rest must be as well. It doesn't make sense to me that you would nominate all of them and then dismiss all of the ones I support keeping because you find fault with three of them. I took the time to go through all 20 of your candidates. Why couldn't you go through mine? WP:MMANOT is not the only notability criteria anyway, so I'm not sure why you arguments for deletion focus exclusively on it. Allow me rebut the criticisms above.

Roy Docyogen - The other piece which 404s for you does not 404 for me. Here is an archived page.

Eddie Ng - You call it a blog, but it still from a reputable news source, and should be treated as such per WP:NEWSBLOG. It is outside the realm of routine coverage.

Andy Wang - These two articles cover the fight in much greater depth than is typical of fight reports. They should not be treated as "routine" one-or-two sentence coverage of many others in this list. There is also an independent interview of Wang that is outside of typical coverage as well. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through all of them before I nominated them. I can't vouch for what any other editor does. I took the ones you mentioned because user Northamerica1000 mentioned the same ones you did. I just checked again on the Roy Docyogen article and it didn't 404, but all it says it that he's fighting on next week's card--nothing about his tactics, etc. Even if the one source is good, I still don't see Ng's notability. As I said, each editor is entitled to their own opinion and I appreciate anyone who cares enough to do a thorough check (as you clearly did). Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it appears that Honorio Banario, Eric Kelly, Roy Docyogen, and Kevin Belingon are currently all title holders in the Universal Reality Combat Championship (URCC) organization, which is the most significant MMA organization in the Philippines. Given that the org has been around since 2002 and promoted 37 events, it can reasonably be considered a notable second tier organization. I am inclined to see those pages beefed up with references than see them deleted. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chad Bannon as he is known not only as an MMA, but also as an actor and model. Am86 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean he is notable. It is hard to argue notability when his resume highlights are roles like "Beefy Guy" and "Burly Cop." The playgirl photospread and short adult film career mentions are essentially porncruft. Nothing here suggests he passes WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two sources to the Dave Huckaba page. Entity of the Void (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dave Huckaba he's fought in ShoXC, Palace Fighting Championship and Shark Fights. Entity of the Void (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work by I Jethrobot. Keep those he found coverage for. Dream Focus 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should keep those which are part of the Universal Reality Combat Championship as mentioned by Osubuckeyeguy. It seems notable in that nation. Dream Focus 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except for Banario, Kelly, Docyogen, and Belingon I think you could reasonably argue that all of the fighters on the list fail to meet notability criteria. The four I think should be kept are because they're getting coverage, although not enough to meet WP:GNG, and they're unbeaten champions of what I think will soon be labeled as a second tier organization. I'm going to ignore WP:CRYSTALBALL and think they'll soon be picked up by a top tier organization. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Indiscriminate mass nomination as pointed out above. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one called it an indiscriminate mass nomination and no one else has suggested they're all notable (or even close to it). Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per User:Dream Focus. Verifiable content of interest to readers is encyclopedic. Period. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus didn't support keeping all the articles. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate a selection it is clear at least a number of these are notable and sorting through them all is a mire. JORGENEV 07:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would a waste of time for all the editors who have already gone through these articles. It looks like people have generally settled on agreeing with I,Jethrobot. Astudent0 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all that are verifiable by MMAFighting and/or Sherdog. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, or another IP from Cleveland, made this point at a previous AfD. The question is notability, not whether or not they're MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Indiscriminate mass nomination as pointed out above. For instance Radeem Rahman has been the subject of an article in pretty much every single major newspaper in Singapore. Here's an interview with him in Time Out Magazine for instance^[1] These fighters should be discussed individually and not thrown in indiscriminately together.Sadoka74 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's had one MMA fight. The population of Singapore is 1/4 that of the New York City urban area, so I don't think being a notable MMA fighter in Singapore is, in itself, notable. Keeping all of the the articles would be a slap in the face to all of the editors who've bothered to research them so far. Even Papaursa admits he made too large a nomination, but that shouldn't negate all of the work done by everyone. Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of those for which sources have been presented above confirming they have been covered reliably. Good work to those who looked for and found sources! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, my apologies for getting carried away with the length of this list and my thanks to everyone, especially I,Jethrobot, for their efforts. Although I don't agree with all of them, I would summarize the discussion this way: Keep Dan Barrera, Mitch Chilson, Eric Kelly (fighter), Andy Wang, Honorio Banario, Roy Docyogen, Joe Abouata, Eddie Ng, and Kevin Belingon, but Delete the rest. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baby-Sitters Little Sister. ..and merge per consensus when there is somewhere useful to do it to Black Kite (t) 00:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Brewer

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

Non-notable character. There are no independent sources here; at the most I could support a redirect to some Baby-Sitters article. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Support. The other two articles, Hannie Papadakis and Nancy Dawes should also be deleted as well, as there is very little information on them in their articles. Mallory Pike (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Already did, but I edit-conflicted with you. ;) Drmies (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. I need a life to always be on here and to have a username after one of the characters, since I couldn't think of anything else and wanted to throw this guy that stalks me on here off my trail. This random guy I know who is not nice somehow always finds my usernames since I use ones from stuff he knows I like, such as NCIS, so now I am using stuff he would never think of. Funny thing is I never edited the NCIS article when I made an account after an NCIS character, he just somehow found it. I guess he's the one who definitley needs a life lol. I'm only saying this since I seen your edit summary on your userpage on how you made over 200 edits and therefore you need a life. That was funny haha. Mallory Pike (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction: I do have a life on Saturday, when Alabama plays. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol. I have a life I guess since I go to my friend's house. And I take care of my cat. Do you have any pets? I have a black cat named Buddy. Mallory Pike (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a characters list per the nom and per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of Baby-sitters Club characters article or something similar. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, somewhere, anywhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Baby-Sitters Little Sister article maybe? The Baby-sitters Club article has the club members listed in that article, so maybe Karen, Hannie, and Nancy (since they are the only three characters from Baby-Sitters Little Sister with their own articles) should just be put in the Baby-Sitters Little Sister article under a section called "characters" or something, like in The Baby-sitters Club article. Mallory Pike (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 51st state#New Zealand. Wifione ^Message 09:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

51st State Party

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

Not notable. Party never registered, has not run candidates. No independent media coverage. Schwede 66 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running a single local body candidate isn't enough for notability. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 51st State Party has run mayoral candidates in New Zealand, but I'm not sure that is sufficient to fulfill the notability requirements for organizations. There also hasn't been any coverage in third-party coverage, other than the standard reporting of votes by the New Zealand Herald, but that is far from the in-depth coverage needed. Political parties are not inherently notable on the basis that no organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete I found it interesting. Aequo (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't kept on Wikipedia because they are interesting to some people. Personal opinions shouldn't drive your decisions on deletion discussion, so please avoid that kind of argumentation in the future. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Personal opinions drive every decision. But, in consideration, I'll add that I think articles on political parties belong in an encyclopedia. Aequo (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are here because you are interested in political parties. That's fine. But it's not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Also, why should political parties have lowered requirements for notability compared to other organizations? That sounds like all political parties are inherently notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've convinced me. Aequo (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, leave redirect to 51st state#New Zealand. The brief mention in the more general article contributes to the discussion of the worldwide phenomenon, which is notable, but its particular manifestation in New Zealand hasn't had enough impact to be independently notable. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 51st state#New Zealand per JamsMLane. Seems logical, as it is already mentioned in that article. Per nom. & others, not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article at the present time.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect sources need to be independent and non-trivial mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:ORG, no objection to a redirect being added after. Mt king ^(edits) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect. Mathmo ^Talk 08:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't see anywhere to merge to. Please contact me if such a target exists.Black Kite (t) 00:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arts & Science Federation of Associations

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

Not notable. It is a student association for the faculty of Arts & Science at Concordia University in Montreal. There is not even a page that exists for this faculty. Perhaps relevant information can be merged into the Concordia Student Union page. MTLskyline (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd concur and go one step further and just put it in as a sentence or two in the college page itself. Beyond495 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the other pages linked to this institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is there to merge here, for this non-notable organization? It's hardly a going search term outside of wiki or university related pages. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Watch

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

This article is an odd duck, seemingly more about Keith Cowing than the site itself, and expressing no real notability for either. If text solely about Cowing and POVs were removed, I'm afraid there would only be two or three sentences left. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible merge to a new article titled "Keith Cowing", if consensus is to do so. Numerous reliable sources pass WP:GNG for stated new article, and some refer to NASA Watch specifically. This is not an exhaustive list, just links that took about twenty seconds to find:

Martin, James (July 23, 2010)."Dennis Wingo and Keith Cowing." Cnet News. Accessed November 2011.
(October 9, 2009). "LCROSS: Keith Cowing on PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer." NASA Lunar Science Institute. Accessed November 2011.
Fearon, Peter (March 22, 2007). "NASA Shutters Ideas Factory." Newser.com. Accessed November 2011.
(May 28, 2010.) "Keith Cowing: Famous Hacks at NASA." Huffington Post. Accessed November 2011.

Also, from the article:

New Moon Rising Publisher: Collector's Guide Publishing Inc; Bk & DVD edition (July 1, 2004) ISBN 1-894959-12-4

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, simply clicking on the Google news link above provides access to articles such as this. Perhaps this nomination to delete is based upon references within the article, rather than the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[42] He has 13 search results on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the Wiki hits are irrelevant. So is the sheer number of hits; there need to be identifiable hits about the subject, not just mentioning it. That's part of substantial coverage – it must be non-trivial and we should avoid self-publications, interviews, and the like where the subject just talks about itself. Looking at the twenty second research results, there's a reliable source problem: "NASA Shutters Ideas Factory." doesn't even mention NASA Watch. And neither does "Keith Cowing: Famous Hacks at NASA.". Am I missing something? This seems to have happened earlier in discussing Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show... Also, Cnet and Huffington are questionable, have been discussed lots without consensus at WP:RSN, and alone probably shouldn't form the basis of notability. Even with those, I'm not convinced that's significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to his comments about there being an article on the guy, nothing more. Good place to start searching for information already found about him. NASA Watch is notable enough on its own though. Dream Focus 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The guy" again. Trying to obviate a deletion discussion about this subject by discussing someone whose article doesn't exist and is not up for deletion? Stay on topic. "The guy" is relevant to the subject but not to this conversation. You don't have to discuss here if you think an article ought to be created. Be bold and create it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Hundreds of results. Major news organizations quote from them. Dream Focus 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:ORG; WP:GOV is also helpful here. There's no significant coverage about the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's an entire newspaper article, contrary to the above statement: Record-Journal - Dec 12, 1999. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, that's one that's actually about the subject. Saw it when you offered it above (linked to the first part of the article). One article isn't substantial coverage, and just a few of them wouldn't be, either. Care to strike out the references you identified above that don't even mention this subject? JFHJr (㊟) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – JFHJr said it well. However, if (sourced) material is created at a new Keith Cowing article, I would favor a redirect. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a lack of significant coverage about the article's topic in multiple independent and reliable sources. I agree with the previous !vote about a potential future redirect, though. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources, or redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Northamerica1000 has created a Keith Cowing article, but appears to have copy/pasted the last three real paragraphs from the NASA Watch article, all unsourced. Rather feel like I should nominate that for deletion as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Feel free to edit the new Keith Cowing article. Judging from the number of reliable sources in the article and available for the topic, however, nominating it for deletion upon your basis wouldn't be very functional toward building a digital encyclopedia. Perhaps at least consider adding more inline citations instead. Per WP:PRESERVE editing policy, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary."Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my problem isn't that the article exists, just that material from one article was copied to another without attribution, which is a big no-no. I would suggest removing those copied paragraphs, and any material that seems truly useful to this new article can be rewritten from scratch with proper citations. Getting rid of those random citations should be a priority: any citation that isn't attached to a specific statement does no one any good. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more inline citations to the Keith Cowing article. Rather than "getting rid" of text, why not WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by doing research and adding inline citations as I've performed? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source all content if you're writing a BLP. Finding cites to already extant uncited material runs an increased risk of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, unless by adding cites you mean correcting it as you go also. That's like writing the article for you. If you're the proponent of the article, especially its creator, you have the burden of doing it right and not leaving egregious problems to fix. You're clearly capable. Again, let's stay on track, vote and comment on NASA Watch here. JFHJr (㊟) 15:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Beyoncé Knowles. Black Kite (t) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAKO by Beyoncé

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

Article about a video game canceled, the game will not have an official release, Beyoncé was sued in $100 million for breach of contract, several pages confirm this information (see nymag.com, supremereaction.com, gamertagradio.com, radio.com and other websites). Has only one source and not have a relevant content, this article fails notability video games. Truu (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Truu (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel like the very sources you've presented in your case are examples of the type of third party sources that establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge - It seems like most of those sources are merely about the lawsuit, not the game itself. One reliable source, Rolling stone, reports on the lawsuit, but mentions a different game's name? ("Starpower"?) It's here: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beyonce-sued-by-video-game-developer-20110427 - Anyways, if anyone can sort out what this is all about, it seems like it would be more fitting to be in a "Lawsuits" or "Controversies" subsection of the main Beyonce article. If not, just delete it outright. The game itself doesn't appear to be notable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only notable thing about the game seems to be that Beyoncé is getting sued for backing out of the deal. It could be mentioned in the Beyonce#Other ventures section Origosan (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - With Beyoncé. Salvidrim (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beyoncé. I agree with Origosan and others. The only notable aspect is the lawsuit which would be more appropriate in Beyonce's page. There is not notability about the game that is enough to give it its own page. HotshotCleaner (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be developed further form this. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the same link I provided above. How is that an argument in favor of keeping the article? It doesn't even mention the game by name. It's a good source about this lawsuit, but says virtually nothing of the game the article in question is about. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, as explained lower, the lawsuit has nothing at all whatsoever to do with this article. Salvidrim (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, when I wrote this I hadn't read what you later said below, as it didn't look like it was a response directly to this particular comment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (with Beyoncé Knowles). There will likely never be enough independant coverage for this article to stay. The lawsuit is mainly biographical information, so it could easily be merged. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Didn't the lawsuit turn out to be only a rumor? She released a behind the scenes video of the game a few months after the alleged law suit occurred. Why would she do that if it wasn't going to be released? RatiziAngelou^contribs 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation - This game has nothing to do with any of the above discussion This is MAKO, by Ubisoft, while the lawsuit is by Gate Five about a game called Starpower: Beyoncé. This has been very widely reported, dozens upon dozens of news reporting outlets, copy of court summons, etc. However, no information about the company Gate Five LLC can be found outside of these news reports whatsoever. I have not found confirmation that the lawsuit was fake either, but with every news report reprising the same information... it's not exactly super convincing either. The only ref in this article mentions to other lawsuit, so this is not the same game as the one that spawned the lawsuit. It nonetheless should be merged into Beyoncé's article, in addition to the previous lawsuit by Gate Five. Salvidrim (talk)
In short, this is not an article about the cancelled game & lawsuit (Starpower: Beyoncé, by Gate Five), but about an in development game (MAKO, by Ubisoft), thus the nomination is incorrect. Salvidrim (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, you mean that the nomination's description about it being the cancelled game is incorrect, but stand by your decision that the game should be merged, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several (potentially non-RS) sources mention the previous lawsuit and this new game. ((1), (2), and others.) Salvidrim (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the artists' page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (snow). Neutrality^talk 05:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relatos desde el Umbral

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. Only review provided is a blog, and Google search ("Relatos desde el Umbral" Alamo) only brings up booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any links to this beyond booksellers and non-notable review blogs. Searches under the author's name does not bring back anything as far as this book goes, nor does it show notability as far as he goes. (So no ability to just create an article for the author himself.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I find no indication the book has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The article author admitted on the Help desk that the reason he wrote the article was that there was not much information about the book in internet. Wikipedia is not a place to give coverage to a subject which deserves more coverage. —teb728 t c 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage available other than booksellers and a couple of blog posts not entirely independent of the author — frankie (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NBOOK has not been met. Nobody's suggesting that points 2,3,4 and 5 are met, which leaves 1 - significant coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Colon el Tom 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book, non-notable authour. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want Is Everything (Victoria Justice song)

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect repeatedly reverted. SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONGS due to not charting. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect due to it failing WP:Notability (music)#Songs: "Most songs" (such as this one) "do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The redirect might continue getting reverted though, so I'm not sure if it would be better to just delete the entire thing. Chris (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources or redirect to the artists page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hall

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

Does not indicate sufficient notability for inclusion. Cloudbound (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a current model and winning Page 3 Idol would be sufficient notability. Tiller54 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — frankie (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sourcing, no significant relevant GNews coverage. Winning an employee of the month-type award from a tabloid publishing her topless pictures does not indicate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in the past, we have tended to keep multiple-award winning models who get on Page 3 or Page 6 several times, but not just once in her career. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability as far as I can see. Being a Page 3 model isn't very notable in and of itself, and the award she won isn't notable either as it's a magazine award only thing, like the Playboy Playmate award. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting all... Wifione ^Message 09:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norayr Gyozalyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article has been around for three years and exists in other languages, none of which has any bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTY. Banants Yerevan, Impuls FC Dilijan, and Ulisses are all FCs that are not fully professional. No other coverage appears to exist for each player to support notability per WP:GNG, so I support the deletion of all pages nominated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.timeoutsingapore.com/sports/feature/interview-radeem-bin-abdul-rahman

[1] ttp://www.timeoutsingapore.com/sports/feature/interview-radeem-bin-abdul-rahman

[1]