Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 14

< 13 September	15 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yii Framework[edit]

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

No improvement on notability since last nomination. Similar article was deleted in ruwiki for the same reason as repeated spam. Peni (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of ghits, unfortunately they are all to blogs and forums. Incidentally, one of the redirect targets suggested in the first AfD has since been deleted itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be a fine tool but not notable and certainly no better supported than the previous delete. NTK (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 applies here too. NW (Talk) 17:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano b gallo[edit]

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

non-notable individual. I can find no coverage of "Cristiano Buonarroti Gallo", and none of "Cristiano B Gallo" outside forums and facebook. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement, a promotion by his friend R. Duval "I have known Cristo for many years and can verify that he is an International photographer. Rene Duval. Photographer." Who is he to certify that he is notable. No third party sources or references. Conflict of interest. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not only is notabililty in question, the article is just an attempt at promotion (especially the second paragraph), and (one of) the author(s) appear(s) to have a Conflict of interest, referring to himself directly in the article. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 as nothing but a promotional page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cristianobuonarrotigallo.webs.com genuine person. GREAT photographer. Please dont be so short sighted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.41.108 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we meant is not just having an official website in order to be notable. Again, this website is a personal website, created by the photographer himself; we cannot consider this as a reliable source. You need to provide 3rd party sources/references. If you say that he is such a great photagrapher, than you should not have any problem in finding some on Goggle, for example. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been invited (above) to look at his website, I did just that. Even if it were a reliable source (and it isn't), it contains no evidence of notability -- just five very conventional photographs, and some boasting. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not know whether the subject is notable, but in this case the article fails even to assert notability. Someone who photographs rich and famous people…So? Somone who might or might not have an exhibition in the UK sometime soon…So? Ian Spackman (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisation of alternative ICE fuels[edit]

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

Duplication of part of Internal combustion engine. Few Sources, poor grammar, poorly organized Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like a duplicate to me, looks like original, poor research. NTK (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I agree with NTK. As it is written, the entire basis for the article (comparison) is WP:SYNTHESIS. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator's contributions reveal him to be a sockpuppet and a trolling only account. Triplestop x3 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Puffs[edit]

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

The article mostly lacks in references and seems to look like an advertisement.

Keep - obviously notable product, page might need a bit of a tidy up -- Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Then it should be tagged for clean-up, not delete. _Met^ty 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kevin Trudeau Show[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without apparent improvement, and the article's creator (and tag's remover) has the same title as the website associated with this programme, indicating conflict of interest. There are no reliable sources to denote any notability -- a Google search reveals large amounts of self-promotion but nothing in the way of objective assessment that I could locate. There are some impressive claims of circulation for a self-published book by the show's host, but that doesn't especially contribute to any notability for this programme. The book itself would probably fall under our fringe theory policy. In addition, I found suggestions that the individual at the centre of all this has been indicted for fraud; that may or may not be the case, but I urge everyone commenting to be sure of the accuracy of their sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply a non-notable Internet talk show with an extreme WP:COI. All of Kevin Trudeau's various projects (and dodging of FTC regulations against him, which is likely one of the few reasons this internet show even exists) are detailed in his own BLP article so there's no need for any merges. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this vote I have found out it does air on radio, but only a few small radio stations which specialize in brokered programming (as in Trudeau pays to put it on). Jango1077 has taken to the Trudeau article to add a promotional POV about the show despite my attempts to maintain NPOV, Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One big advertisement about a non-notable show, and COI is an understatement. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to disagree. How is this wikipedia page "one big advertisement" when it contains factual information? Who decides what is "notable" or "non-notable"? Are you sure that your personal opinions of Kevin Trudeau are not clouding your judgment on whether a syndicated radio show by a best selling author is worthy of a wikipedia page? Jango1077 —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment Absolutely sure, thanks; I have no personal opinion about Mr. Trudeau whatsoever, and have apparently understated the suggestions of conflict of interest, according to another editor expressing himself above. Besides, we're not talking about him personally, we're talking about a radio show. As far as "who decides what is notable or non-notable", those are community standards that have been established by the efforts of a large group of editors over a period of about five years; you can find notability standards at this link, to start with. If you have further questions about the basic nature of Wikipedia articles, you can start by looking at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? Accounting4Taste:talk 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I reviewed your articles, thanks. Since Kevin has had very high profile guests on his show and he's quite famous due to his best selling books, the show is notable and therefore deserves it's own page. Is there a problem with stating factual data so people can find more information on this show? The show is similar to the show Alex Jones broadcasts and yet that show has it's own page. Jango1077'
  - Not necessarily. Having notable guests on his show doesn't automatically make him notable. Please read WP:INHERITED. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you're at it, given your Alex Jones argument, also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black mass (paranormal entity)[edit]

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

According to the article, this is some kind of "entity" that is "debated within paranormal circles", however the sources are TV shows and Ghost enthusiast web sites. ~~Fails WP:N, no WP:RS reliable sources found for this term.~~ No reliable sources found to verify notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally proposed a merge but a deletion would be better. Not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep by default per "non-notable" not being a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that that link leads to an essay which enjoys limited support, the link says that stating "not notable" and absolutely nothing else is a poor reason for deletion. It does not, despite your many attempts to make out otherwise, say that "any argument that uses the words 'not' and 'notable' together is invalid". Stifle (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Notability" has even less support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...which, at the top of the page, says "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". Perhaps you've referred so many people to it that you've forgotten its actual meaning? Stifle (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case it is to an account who admittedly indiscriminately says to delete everything and is closed minded to the point of never argueing to keep (yes, I typically argue to keep, but I have argued and even nominated dozens of articles for deletion). In this case, it really is a matter of just saying "per nom" for the sake of getting in another delete vote rather than actual argument. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion... embarassed but I don't know how to do that.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If, after a week, an administrator determines that the discussion has been insufficient, they will relist it at that stage. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article show little content and a lot of fluff, it misses something with encyclopaedic value (e.g. defintion). I am not convinced this article is about a paranormal entity, looks like an abstract concept used in fiction and story telling (something dark representing the evil or unknown). 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the four references appear to be fiction and two appear to be claims of sightings of the phenomenon. Here is a photo of a black mass. :p Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exoskeletal engine[edit]

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

Article is about an apparently technically flawed style of jet engine that 'might work in 20 years' (which if I break the tech-speak code means 'we can't make it work'), unlike the wide variety of jet engines that do actually work. Article topic seems to be a non notable. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, possible namechange to Exoskeletal engine research, per Cancer research, Genome research, etc. The article is ill defined as an object that does not yet exist; the theory itself is an entity, in the same way that the Theory of gravity is, let alone the research into the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSeems to be a real concept being taken by credible researchers, but I'm not sure how much discussion there is of the concept outside of NASA (which would confirm notability)Nigel Ish (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only get 65 hits in google, and the hits I get in google seem to be almost exclusively primary sources, and the other hits, I wouldn't call them substantial coverage at all. It's not like we're knee-deep in secondary source mentions of it, they're all very superficial.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. "It doesn't work yet" is not a good reason to delete. Otherwise, we may as well blank all the pages about hypothetical spacecraft propulsion, concept aircraft, any technology not already in mass production really. Seriously what's the point? Why not delete the Deadalus Drive page then, that hasn't gotten off the ground either. Keep it.

It's not really about that. Project Daedalus was written about in a WP:RELIABLE secondary source, and searching google[1] gives 6,500 hits. None of this has been described in secondary sources, and we get only 65 hits in google. The papers I looked at suggested that the whole idea seems to have some fundamental problems (mainly in the bearings, which isn't surprising IMO given the geometry, but whatever). In the absence of a secondary source describing this topic, the wikipedia should not have this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah but that's not what you said. And anyway, the point is that this is no less realistically possible than the Deadalus Drive or Valkyrie spaceship or whatever. I still see no reason we should delete it. At worst move it to an article focusing on research for it, maybe. But really, counting google hits doesn't make it any more or less probable or possible or technically sound--I can find a hella lot of google hits for the TimeCube and Banzai Kittens too. Probably ten times as many as Deadalus, IF for some reason we needed to troll the net for that crap.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bonsai kitten and Time Cube are both considered notable, and are helped in that by having lots of google hits, other websites clearly consider them notable. This has almost none. That's not a good sign.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Non notable and technically flawed; a bit like the opinion of Whittle's ideas given by "experts" of the day in 1929/30. The sources noted (in 2005/6) that a suitable bearing system needs to be developed which could take some time; however, the 20-year figure quoted in the source is speculative – none of us has a crystal ball. Engineers and designers have always had to overcome technical challenges to make new ideas work, but that doesn't mean that they're technically flawed, and simply because today's technology hasn't yet been able to provide a solution (AFAIK) it doesn't follow that one will not be found. I was going to vote Keep, but IMHO Anarchangel's suggestion to move it to something like Exoskeletal engine concept is a better idea. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote is about whether it is notable or not. It's wp:notable if it has substantial coverage, particularly in secondary sources. It doesn't though, and hence is ineligible for inclusion here. If they actually got it to work, that would doubtless change, people would talk about it more, and it would become notable. IMO it's clearly not, right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article desperately needs some technical diagrams for a better appreciation of the concept. --Red Sunset 08:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has value in its basic principles. It needs technical diagrams. Rosser Gruffydd 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Completely redundant to what is currently in Filter (band)#New Untitled Record with the exception of the unsourced quote from Patrick. A merge or redirect would not make any sense here. MuZemike 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Fifth Album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER. No confirmed release date or track list, no sources of any kind Wolfer68 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all that has been hammered into oblivion...fails WP:NALBUMS. No confirmed tracklisting, release date, name. No coverage as well. talking birds 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Although I did find a source for the quote, the article as a whole fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt so this title can never be used again. Hammeriffic and crystal, and the usual 'it may come out' quote that's already out of date. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by any means possible. Don't see what good salting will do since there are infinite variations on these things and who knows, maybe there will be an Untitled Fifth Album some day. NTK (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no evidence of notability, self-promotion, sockpuppetry. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REISSER-CYCLE[edit]

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

A new design of internal combustion engine being shamelessly promoted by its designers. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged speedy G11. The parts that are worth keeping duplicate Four-stroke engine. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11, per Blanchardb. WuhWuzDat 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting for the third time. I now have a sockpuppet with no other edits screaming bloody murder on my talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubefilter[edit]

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

All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY. Otterathome (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Don't you ever learn? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tubefilter is the leading source for web series news. I'm not sure how this doesn't qualify for WP:NOTABILITY. But, in any case, you didn't even put a notability tag on the page or make a good faith effort to give editors a chance to improve the article. Billbowery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bold statement saying that a website is a leading source of something, so an independent source saying so would be needed to back that claim up. None of the independent sources currently in the article seem to. I'm sure if it was the leading website in something there would be significant coverage on the website. And I didn't tag the page as looking at the quality of the article and number of sources, it seems likely that if there was any significant coverage, it would have already been added to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Otterathome's nominations in the webseries field are proven to be in bad faith. See the two nominations done for lg15:the last and two nominations done for Jackson Davis (kept), as well as Mesh Flinders (kept), Vincent Caso (kept), etc. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LG15:_The_Last_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mesh_Flinders, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Otterathome.2C_User:80.171.27.157.2F80.171.27.157.2C_and_User:Mathieas and on and on, topic ban idea has been raised for him/her by other editors. On the merits of the AfD (of which there are none), tubefilter is recognized as a leading source of new in the webseries field.--Milowent (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion.--Otterathome (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, when did EQAL and LG15 pages disappear? Billbowery (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billbowery - I don't think EQAL has a page yet (though I think some editors were working on one in a sandbox), and I'm not sure LG15 would make sense, as that is usually used as shorthand for lonelygirl15. --Milowent (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15 was a redirect to LG15 Franchise, which was deleted first as a copyvio/A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: So you admit that you have not made a good-faith effort to follow WP:FAILN here? In that case, I think you should withdraw your nomination and this article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith effort has already appeared to have been made by the authors of the article as shown by the large amount of one-off mentions in attempt to show it is notable, also see WP:BURDEN.--Otterathome (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is about adding information to a page that is likely to be challenged. Not to deleting pages. Regardless, as the one adding the AFD tag to a page, you have to show that it does not and cannot meet WP:N which you clearly have not done so if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore, this nomination is invalid and the article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh what? Did you read "All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY." at the top? And the burden still relies on authors of entire articles to show they are notable. Why do you keep repeating 'speedy keep' instead of trying to show how it passes our guidelines? It's getting old.--Otterathome (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove it does not meet WP:N if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore this article FAILS WP:DEL and is an invalid nomination. Therefore, I have every right to argue for speedy keep. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a legitimate speedy keep reason. But if you want to be satisfied: no significant coverage within in the last month, and still none before then. Instead of putting the burden on me, please address the notability issues yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAILN does NOT change WP:BURDEN, it does NOT state that you have to go find sources for them, Otter. It states that Deletion is a last resort and that beforehand, a good faith effort should be made to determine if the problem is lack of sources to cite(and therefore notability), or lack of citations of available sources(and therefore it's just a poorly written article). It contains a list of things that it suggests doing as part of that effort: looking for sources yourself is one possibility. The others are things like putting up notability tags, leaving messages on talk pages, contacting editors interested in the subject to tell them that there is a problem... In short, making the people that WP:BURDEN falls upon aware that there's an issue and giving them a chance to correct it. If this effort fails to improve the sourcing after a reasonable period of time, THEN you start considering merging it into another article or deleting it. In all cases this requires working with other editors to establish a consensus among them, and not just trying to impose your personal opinion upon them. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article not having any substantial coverage thus failing WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY isn't a personal opinion, it's fact.--Otterathome (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a cursory look through Wikipedia and found several news or information sites (version tracker for instance), which I think are far less notable and influential, not to mention less sourced, that have entries. I think this is a valid method of gauging inclusion. Tubefilter is one of the 3 (I would argue 4) best sources for information about web video, not to mention one of the most influential. Mathieas (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. If it's one of 'the best' and 'most influential', you'd need a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion (WP:ILIKEIT).--Otterathome (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this situation WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is potentially quite relevant, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions recorded). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Chess Club[edit]

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

~~Non notable local club. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. References are to primary sources or blogs.~~ RadioFan (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - where are we going on Wikipedia? Here we have an article with some potential created by a new editor and with a whole load more sources than many/most first time pages and instead of guiding the creator we hit him with a Prod followed by an AfD within the first day. Sure it needs better sourcing but a little research shows many are available and for the USCF to say that "the Dallas Chess Club is one of the most active chess clubs in the United States" is an assessment that indicates notability. Also, how many organisations have a 12 year on its board of directors? This is not a local chess club but a large and important one within its field. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Give it some time. It is pretty good for an article's first day. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look at Google News [2] shows that the club has received newspaper coverage even though the articles are too old for free access. In addition, at least one smaller chess club (the Oslo Chess Club) has an entry in a paper encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - while the references in the article still need work, its clear that 3rd party sources are available to help this article meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselarity[edit]

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

The latest blatantly non-notable neolgism to get an entry. Coined today(!). A speedy for this category would be great. Prod & Prod2 declined. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, WP:NAD and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the concept is the subject of reliable sources, let alone the term. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete because, as Hairhorn pointed out, the term was apparently created today. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms Billbowery (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, only citation indicates it is a brand-new single-source neologism. NTK (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Neologism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been begging for a speedy delete category for neolgisms, but there isn't one.... Hairhorn (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No indication that it meets the guidelines for inclusion". Or Wikipedia:WINAD. Alternatively: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a speedy - the first describes A7, but that only applies to people, animals, organizations, not words; and WP:WINAD is part of WP:NOT and is #1 in the list of WP:CSD#Non-criteria, where "neologisms" is explicitly #4. I have made this proposal twice (actually, I proposed that things blatantly made up one day should be speediable), but it never gets anywhere - people say that nonsense words can be dealt with by G3 (vandalism/misinformation), but I feel that's only appropriate where there is malice or intent to deceive, not where somebody has made up a word he thinks is useful (or funny) and wants to share it with the world. I'm afraid we're stuck with PROD/AfD. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summability criterion[edit]

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

Delete per this discussion and per WP:G4. The current article is almost identical to the deleted article. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, rehash of the old deletion. NTK (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per this discussion. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. If this can't be speedied – Delete; non-notable voting method (lacking mention in several independent reliable sources). --Lambiam 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:G4? As I'm not an administrator, I can't tell whether it's the same as the previously deleted material, but if it is, it can be tagged as such... Cheers, I'^mperator 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by mirrors the article appears to be very different from the previous version and has a different source, so I removed my speedy designation. On the other hand it was recreated by a banned suspected sock puppet. NTK (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems pretty clear here although its the content that seems to the issue not the subject so I'll state specifically that there is no objection to someone writing a properly sourced article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemics of Divine Reality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains one paragraph of OR and a lot of essay-writing. The term "Epistemics of Divine Reality" isn't even attested: see, for instance, this search. The one name produced by this search is also the name found in all the external links and other contributions added to various articles (Epistemics, Revelations, Rationalism, Epistle to the Hebrews) by the author and main contributor to this article, and I have a strong suspicion that this is not a coincidence (see below on user/creater and the redirect).

A closer look at this current article reveals that most of it is a rather haphazard collection of essay-like summaries of different epistemological position culminating in a decidedly unencyclopedic set of questions: "Are there two different methodologies of researching: the scientific, for the material world and the theological, for the spiritual world? Or there is just one. That is a question which must be answered by the Epistemics of Divine Reality." Perhaps--but such an epistemics only exists in the self-published works (e-book, websites, booklets) of Domenic Marbaniang. I have refrained from gutting the article, though that would be no more than proper; it would leave only the first paragraph and the last part of the last paragraph.

The article has been nominated for deletion before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality. The outcome I believe to have been flawed in the sense that no better article ever came out of it--and this suggests to me the non-notability of the term. The article was trimmed down to this, which is nothing more than an explanation of what the term might mean, but it is still not a notable term. I don't want to pick apart every single keep-argument, but one was by an SPA (its only edit), another was by User:Rdsmarb, the WP name of Marbaniang, which now redirects to User:Platonic Guardian--the user who is responsible for the article in its current form. I do note that all the keeps express doubt as to whether this should stand alone or redirect to Existence of God (this includes User:DGG and User:Colonel Warden); I would suggest that a redirect is the highest this article could attain. However, in my opinion this article is OR and unrelated summary, and the term as such does not exist--this is why I advocate deletion rather than some sort of merge. I apologize for the lenght of this nomination and would ask editors to carefully cut through the non-relevant parts of the article. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to add the references given to various other articles on religion and epistomology, great. this is to my reading overwhelmingly original research. i cannot imagine encyclopedia britannica publishing this, and if it was an accepted phrase with common use, it would undoubtedly be published there, unlike many trivial subjects that EB would not publish that we would allow. However, as the first poster (not intentional), i am interested in arguments either way. I generally dont see value in articles on religion written assuming that the religious perspective is inherently true, sort of like in-universe articles on fictional characters. from the WP point of view, God/divine reality may be seen as a fictional character or abstract idea that is widely believed to be real, and articles need to reflect that NPOV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is a very real subject on inquiry, and treating it as fiction is extreme POV. An article on a religious topic needs to assume it true for the purposes of discussion, just as an article on any theory does. That is not in-universe, just clarity. We ought not append to every religious article a paragraph saying that God may not exist after all, just as we ought not add to every article on the material world that it may be an illusion after all. For articles discussing the question of the existence of God or of the material world, that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From God: "God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe." This is what i mean. it doesnt say, for example, "god is the creator of the universe". we dont say "god doesnt exist" or assume god does exist. we write an article about god. i didnt say to write as if all religion was fiction. i meant to say we dont assume a particular religious perspective is true. anyway, truth is not the goal, but verifiability and notability. and we WILL have sourced statements in many articles on religion showing controversies or heresies both from outside and within the religion, if the issue is big enough to get commentary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked some of the sources a little more carefully this time--I apologize for my earlier hasty reading. I observe that the article did not actually give specific sources in the usual way, referring instead to online essays or reprinted versions--I fixed the first, but stopped there, as it appeared needless to continue. Such a method of citation does not give any great confidence in the quality of the work. Goldstein's theory of Epistemics is a significant philosophical theory, with many Google Scholar references. A clear presentation of it and related theories can be found in his authoritative article "Social Epistemology" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [3] Unfortunately, what he discusses is not what the present article discusses, and the extension to inquiry into the nature of God appears to be entirely the unsourced OR of the author here. I see no reason to redirect. This has no particular relation to any of the actual theories being discussed, and is no more a topic in religion than it is in philosophy. A redirect would be according undue weight to pure OR and SYNTHESIS, one based apparently on unsophisticated use of the sources. A search needs to be made for traces of this OR in our related articles. I do not think that EB is our standard--we include what it does, but we go much further--and on traditional topics, studies have shown it not to be significantly more accurate than Wikipedia. The reason this article is inappropriate is that it is discussed by nobody outside Wikipedia at all. Let it actually be published, and let philosophers comment on it, and only then will it be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the OR. For the most part the article leads us through the views of notable philosophers on the matter. The approach seems quite respectable. It just seems that the treatment lacks polish, as is often the case with novice editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In browsing the sources, it is interesting that I arrived at a similar place to DGG - see The Epistemology of Religion - another article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The only problem with the article which we discuss is that it uses the unusual term epistemics for no clear reason. If we consider a better title such as Epistemology of Religion (a stub created by the same editor), then there are hundreds of respectable academic sources which discuss the matter, such as the one I cite. The matter is thus highly notable and deletion is therefore inappropriate as a way of developing this content, per our editing policy. A more sensible way forward might be to merge the current content into Epistemology of Religion and then generalise the topic by reference to these numerous sources. Another possible merge target is Philosophy of religion. Again this covers similar ground under a better title but is poorly sourced and so might benefit from the merger with this article, which contains numerous inline citations. The whole topic area seems to need a good clean up but that's not what AFD is for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It not only uses the word "epistemics," possibly a notable topic though underdeveloped in its current state, but also "Divine reality"--which is really a far cry from "religion" and sounds more like a Mahavishnu Orchestra album (which I'd love to have, if it exists) than a philosophical topic. And I won't deny that I also object to an article, a title, and a redirect that lend legitimacy to a set of highly questionable articles--an article, a title, and a redirect that consist of a phrase which is meaningless and unattested in any reliable source. This is not to deny the validity of a large part of your argument, Colonel; what I'm saying, I guess, is it doesn't pertain to the pseudo-philosophy suggested by the phrase "Epistemics of Divine Reality". Drmies (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Epistemics has a 1000 Google Scholar hits (the max one is allowed to view). Therefore, I think that this argument, where we try to divine the intent of the author of this essay, isn't going in the correct direction. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is about "Epistemics of Divine Reality", not about "Epistemics." Who said anything about intent? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be saying is that you don't like it but this is a weak argument for deletion. If you don't like material of this sort then a better approach is to improve it. Changing the title may be done by moving the article or merger. Improving the content is performed by normal content editing. Deletion seems quite unhelpful in that it would not only destroy a significant body of work which includes many sources but it would also alienate and drive off an editor who seems willing to work in this area and has give us good food for thought and further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I am saying at all--invoking IDONTLIKEIT is a way around the argument, and I would remind you that that cuts both was. To say that my objection is the same as a dislike is dismissing all argument as a matter of taste. I do admit that I don't like non-notable material in articles with made-up titles that attempt to mask their lack of content by adding statements made about God by famous philosophers. There is no significant body of work here. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My main reason for agreeing that this impressive looking article is original research is the fact that it contains passages that make little sense. For example:

Polytheism is an example of pluralistic epistemology which doesn't allow rationalization of experience but accepts plurality of being as given in sense data as the only reality.

Polytheism is the belief in multiple deities. This unreferenced statement doesn't explain well why the author even thought that polytheism contains an epistemology, much less why polytheism "doesn't allow rationalization of experience". These non-sequitur sentences seem to indicate that this text is someone's original musings. The epistemology of religion surely is a valid subject; but I'm not sure this is helping all that much. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to nitpick and criticise the work of others but this is not the proper purpose of AFD. The question before us is whether this entire article is an utterly hopeless case and so should be completely deleted. This is a severe test and picking holes in particular passages is insufficient for this as they may be improved by ordinary editing. When I find a moment, I shall work upon the article to show how it may be improved by such normal editing means. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a textbook example of unsupported original research and essay writing. It is unreferenced by anything that would establish notability and completely unencyclopedic in content and in writing style. Someone should nominate Epistemics too, on the same grounds, but this one is even more clear-cut. NTK (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real source is an self-published book which can be seen here. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Colonel W decided to move the page to "Epistemology of religion". Since significant moves during an afd discussion are discouraged, and there does not appear to be any clear consensus yet for this one, I moved it back, without prejudice one way or another to what the community may decide here. I left the redirect under the name he used--that can be dealt with later. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything that could live under this title would be best discussed in the article Existence of God which already exists (as far as we can know that anything "exists"). pablo_hablo. 21:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I say above, we can't even figure out what the author is trying to say. It is not our duty to say every essay from deletion by completely rewriting it. Those that do want to completely rewrite it can do it by themselves, without any input from this essay. Abductive (reasoning) 21:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no great difficulty understanding it. For example, the first section on Monist epistemologies presents an Indian perspective on idealism - the concept that, because our senses are unreliable, we can only truly know the world of thought and ideas. Many philosophers have started from a similar premise, e.g. Descartes' famous Cogito ergo sum. Descartes went on to develop a proof of God and that's the general topic here - philosophical ways of thinking about the fundamentals of God and religion. The main difficulty when working in this area is that there is a huge quantity of philosophical writings upon the topic. I find it easier to develop an existing draft than to start from nothing. The previous author(s) have provided links and references of which I was unaware and I do my bit by my making my own contribution. This process of incremental development is our explicit policy. It is quite definitely not our policy to delete early drafts because they are unsatisfactory in some way. 99% of our millions of articles are of less than good quality and so we are exhorted to be tolerant. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There remains a basic problem: there is no such thing as "Epistemics of Divine Reality." The concept can be formed, sure, but there is nothing in any kind of reliable source that could be called that. I hate to be a party pooper, but you are talking about the epistomology of religion, and the first thing that needs to be solved here is the basic terminology of the article. You say there is a "huge quantity of philosophical writings upon the topic," but if the topic is "Epistemics of Divine Reality," than that statement is incorrect: there are no sources on that topic, except for the two written and frequently referenced by the inventor of the phrase. I sound like a broken record, I'm sure, but I have the feeling I'm not getting the basics across here: there is no school, discipline, field, philosophy, concept, or focus group called "Epistemics of Divine Reality." Drmies (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to treat the matter too literally. A topic is not its title - see Proper name (philosophy). The essential points of this topic are extensively discussed by scholars - see here for tens of thousands of sources. If we consider the current title unsatisfactory then we correct this by moving the article to a better title. Deletion is not needed nor appropriate because it would also erase all the content and edit history. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular article starts with a definition of sorts of "proper name" by John Stuart Mill, and it could been a definition of or statement about the term by any number of philosophers, logicians, or grammarians--see this search. In our case, we need a page just to even clarify the term, because no one uses it--see this search. That the article is really about something else might be a valid reason to move, but I'm not even sure that the article as it is (an essay of sorts with some philosophical questions thrown in) that it is about 'epistemology of religion': that would be an entirely different article, and the history of the present article adds nothing to such an article. You even proved that yourself in this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay / original research. —Lowellian (reply) 06:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Epistemology of religion is one of major branches of philosophy of religion, and there is enough reliable coverage of the topic to fill 100 WP articles. That said, it remains to be seen whether or not this article is a good start. Recommend incubation. Skomorokh 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general article on that subject; it is one person's theory. Mangoe (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. WP:NAC _Met^ty 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Séamus Coleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do I withdraw this request - apologies, just seen previous debate resulted in keep Steve-Ho (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Inuit mythology. seems to be the least harmful of the options available and I hope noone minds my using discretion in this case Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wentshukumishiteu[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources for this creature, in either spelling. No hits in Google Books or News, and what I find on the web is all totally unreliable or as reliable as its strongest source--which is this Wikipedia article. The German and Dutch WP articles have no sources either (and the one for this article is dead). Drmies (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's the web archive of the listed source, which is apparently from the official website for the Innu nation. Still a single dead link doesn't really cut it, and the rest of the web hits are quite sketchy. Possible merge into a list. (Now that I'm looking, a number of the articles in Template:Inuit Mythology are one-liners with no source whatsoever.) Joshdboz (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the low number of literate people familiar with Innu mythology, chances are that many of the deities and other creatures will have few or no reliable sources written about them. Unfortunately, that means information given to Wikipedia about them is not verifiable, and that means no article can be written. At best, there can be a centralized article with only a mere mention of each individual deity or creature. As for the articles mentioned by Joshdboz, maybe an expansion of Inuit mythology is in order. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was wondering if this was a hoax or not. Thanks, Josh, for the archived link; I hope some mythology geek comes along and saves this, but I am not comforted by the utter lack of even Google hits. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the problem is just the transliteration into English. I Googled the alternate spelling in brackets and found the United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation Web site, which I've added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also like to make a WP:PRESERVE appeal here based on the fact that for thousands of years Inuit culture was entirely oral, and cut off from Western contact or transcription. The written form of Inuktitut was only developed in the late 19th century. Aboriginal nations have only begun to take advantage of digital media to document their own stories. So unlike classical or Norse mythology, there is still an awful lot of work to do in documenting Inuit mythology. I myself was present at the premiere of the multi-award-winning feature Atanarjuat and I can tell you that the mythology behind that film was completely opaque to non-Inuit audiences, while entirely familiar to Inuit viewers. So we're just beginning to discover Inuit culture and legend and I respectful ask that we use prudence in considering whether to delete here, as I think the ref now makes it clear this is not a hoax. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the list of articles in the Inuit mythology template, most of them are one-liners. The "United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation"'s website doesn't inspire confidence as a scholarly source. This article should be merged into the pre-existing Inuit mythology, which is very incomplete and could be greatly improved. The information is good to have on wikipedia but it would be read more often as a part of a unified article, instead of dozens of separate snippets. So my vote would be turn into a redirect to Inuit mythology. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- As for merging dozens of these "snippets," are you also saying we should then delete Template:Inuit_Mythology, which links to these articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concepts like Sedna (mythology) and Inua would have no shortage of references. (Inua is short now, but could easily be expanded.) Perhaps just streamline the template down to those articles that have enough material and can stand alone, them merge together the smaller entries that are essentially just definitions? -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
    - I could live with that. I guess we'll see how many red links start appearing in the template, if more articles are deleted and/or merged. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion so that's not happing. Therefore the choice is between "keep" and "no consensus" and it seems to me that with the sources provided by Cunard , it squeeks by. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Stars[edit]

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

Speedy G11 declined. Music festival with unclear notability, and the article is somewhat promotional. No third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article certainly has issues, it is well written for an article by a newbie. Given that we have a systemic bias favoring technical issues, white race, developed nations, and the nothern hemisphere, we should be glad to have this beginning article, welcome the new, dedicated editor, and help them, instead of overwhelming them with templates after templates and repeated deletion threats. — Sebastian 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N. See this article from ic Liverpool and this article from Resident Advisor. There are many more sources on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Resident Advisor page: it looks like a blog to me. The IC Liverpool site sounds interesting, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Resident Advisor is a local magazine, and the article is posted in the "Local News/United Kingdom" category, so I can't see how it's a blog. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Ringer[edit]

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

It's with some reluctance that I nominate an article that has a certain bathetic appeal, but that asserts minimal significance; that even for this assertion relies on sourcing that's demonstrably unreliable (see its talk page), minimal, and laughably credulous; and that has other issues besides. However, it's sported warning templates quite long enough. Hoary (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn; see below. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never have felt well enough to do the reduction to make the entry a simple summary with references to the biographical details, as was mentioned on the talk page. The blahs just have dogged me for months. I think a man who documented the west in the mid-20th century merits an entry. A few minor details about cameras is rather extreme to declare the source "unrealiable". I am saddened at what I perceive as the growing self-pomposity and myopia of the guardians of Wikipedia. Now only bigshots merit entries. What a sad statement of what should be a more democratic entity than traditional encyclopedias. But I am not going to put up a fuss if you delete the entry. Just shake my head at the sad spectacle of it all. User:Dgabbard
- the growing self-pomposity and myopia of the guardians of Wikipedia -- Why the plural? Only one person had said anything here about Ringer: me. Now, while other people might be offended by a charge of "self-pomposity and myopia", I'm not offended at all; still, I am a little surprised. ¶ I should elaborate on the charge I make above of credulousness. I quote from the article: Ringer had near total recall of his travels, and Stiles found all he had to do to prompt a memory was (for example) state "OK, it's the summer of 1941 and you're getting ready to head west again from New Jersey." Within moments Ringer would respond "Yes. I remember I left about eight in the morning. It was a clear cool day. Not too hot. I traveled north on Route 22 and stopped for breakfast at a little diner." Many people have the ability to convincingly give surprising detail about past events. A much smaller number can actually do so reliably. I'm willing to believe that Ringer was among that smaller number. But I don't see any hint that he was. Nobody would expect that a newspaper writer would subject him to some memory test, but there were surely plenty of opportunities for the writer to announce that yes, his researches had proved that this or that implausible detail that Ringer claimed to remember was in fact true. ¶ a man who documented the west in the mid-20th century merits an entry Well, there were a fair number of people who did just that, a number of FSA photographers among them. Of course, this doesn't mean that WP shouldn't present more, and I'm very willing to believe that Ringer's interests (and use of color) set him off from the mainstreams -- and even this is unnecessary, but let's see evidence of a degree of recognition. ¶ Now only bigshots merit articles: Absolutely not: among photographers, consider the FSA photographer Sheldon Dick, a minor and at best mediocre photographer whose work is treated with some respect in the article here; Kensuke Kazama, who until recently was standing in a Tokyo park on sunny days, selling his photos for a thousand yen a print; Mieko Shiomi, an amateur whose works have appeared in a single book that she published herself; and I suppose a whole lot of others besides. ¶ As for the shock of having one's own article flagged for possible deletion, (i) this article has had other warning templates for a long time (neither you nor anybody else had touched it for five months), and (ii) when my learned friend Dicklyon did something similar to one of "my" articles, I was so pissed off with this/him, and was so dogged by the blahs, that I improved the article. You are (and anyone else is) very welcome to do likewise to this article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he might be notable, though it's hard to sort that out from the overdetailed bio. I removed the material which would give any reasonable person a bias against the article. Next step, it would help to have some additional source--are his photographs are in any collection? Where, besides this one local magazine were they published? DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG for doing the summary I readily admit I should have done. SIGH. Yeah, additional sources would be helpful. Ringer seems to have fallen between the cracks as to being documented. And I think Mr. Stiles is the one with custody of the photos and there is no indication when/if they might be donated to an approriate archive. "growing self-pomposity and myopia" I guess is a reaction to some of my encounters with editors and also all this talk in media reports that edits will soon have to pass muster with editors who will police the site. Not always a very plesant experience. If the slimmed down version passes muster I am grateful. User:Dgabbard

All those media reports: here's a sample. If I understand the change correctly, it will have absolutely no impact on your attempts to edit the minority of articles that would be affected, as long as you were logged in. Neither the article on Ringer nor this AfD would be affected. But this is better discussed elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and at this point it's only BLP's that are being considered. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any chance of an article on Stiles, or his magazine. It would give some perspective on importance? DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Stiles would take time to research. Not sure how much perspective on importance it would contributeUser:Dgabbard

There's enough out there. See this for starters. (I might even start something later today.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm disappointed. Unlike a lot of articles on obscure photographers, this one can't be promotional: the man's dead, and nobody seems to be attempting to make money off his work. I like to hear of photographers who are doing something that isn't merely commercial; I'd hoped to hear more about Ringer that would lead me to withdraw this nomination. Well, there's still time. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS and if JForget undertook to do some work on this within a year from now, he'd be welcome to have it userfied in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could if it is deleted, although I will relist this a final time. JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for a final time. JForget 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. DGG did the necessary editing to make the entry a summary of what Ringer did and why he matters. He documented a world that no longer exists. Decades from now historians will celebrate having his visual record of mid-20th century western culture as a resource to draw on. I am sure in time the photos will be donated to a institution that will make them available. I think all that merits an entry. If it doesn't measure up, I appreciate a fair discussion was held on its merits. User:Dgabbard

Nomination withdrawn. Although I think immediately above Dgabbard overstates the case for Ringer, and although Ringer seems only to have been noticed by a single, local publication, that publication itself seems article-worthy and this article is now scrupulously compiled. Incidentally, my own sagging bookshelves contain several volumes of photographs from the miraculously preserved collections of negatives of this or that photographer -- Victor Barsokevitsch (fi:Victor Barsokevitsch), Johannes Pääsuke, etc) -- and I wish all the best for Ringer's afterlife. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Psychopathic Rydas. Evil saltine (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duk Da Fuk Down[edit]

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

Non-notable album from a band of questionable notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. According to Allmusic, the album never charted. [4]. Unlikely search term make redirect a poor option and the possibility that the band article itself won't survive AfD does as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks like enough Ghits exist to prove notability. (Side note: I listen to rap, but after looking at the cover, I don't think I'd buy this album.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we know just counting Ghits doesn't make something notable, would you mind explaining how you feel the album passes WP:NALBUMS? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said weak because the album is available for purchase at Amazon -- but some users don't consider that enough for notability. (BTW, I changed your wikilink to WP:NALBUMS because WP:ALBUMS is a WikiProject.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be one of those users. Considering that Amazon will sell books from vanity publishers etc, I can't consider simply being for sale to be much of an indicator of notability. But thanks for the response. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delizzle - not a notable album, no meaningful content that is not already covered at Psychopathic Rydas. pablo_hablo. 11:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note :Relisted for a last time for more discussion. JForget 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM, specifically "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Seeing as Psychopathic Rydas is notable enough, the album is inherently notable. That said, I wouldn't mind a merge into PR, per "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" Cheers, I'^mperator 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"then officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said "I wouldn't mind a merge", as I agree the article doesn't present much new information. Cheers, I'^mperator 13:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess my question is if you are ok with the merge and it doesn't really meet the keep criteria, why your !vote is "keep" instead of "merge" then? I'm just asking out of curiosity, not really arguing it with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...I'm fine w/ either...how about Merge into Psychopathic Rydas. I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that the info is perfectly valid and shouldn't be deleted. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) as a copyright infringement of all the sites that were listed in the article, with the exception of one, which is a circular reference a Wikipedia article which was copypasted. MuZemike 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migraine Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable zine with two issues published. I couldn't find any sources in the usual places. this is the original version of the article. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The entire article is copyvios from multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send More Paramedics[edit]

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

Band does not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Several editors have had their hands in this article, so the band has a few fans at least, but no indications of any degree of notability. No secondary sources given, nor could any be found with significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the band's albums:

A Feast for the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Hallowed and the Heathen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Awakening (Send More Paramedics album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I did find an album review [5], that was it. I also found this, but in my book, advertising in the local paper that you've got a video shoot on isn't exactly significant coverage. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. If the band article does end up getting deleted the albums will be taken care of under speedy A9. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following remark is transcluded from the talk page

Keep: "Rock and roll has got to go." Randy RALEY, 1958. One by one, KWK St. Louis broke every single rock and roll album in their inventory. In the end, the station closed as their listenership dropped.

This is the same thing; Deleting the entry just becasue they're not a band "anymore" is like deleting the Elvis page becasue he's not a singer anymore (he's dead).65.100.56.249 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)A REDSON[reply]

End of transclusion.

The page isn't up for deletion because they're not a band anymore. The page is up for deletion because, even while they were a band, they did not achieve the degree of notability required by WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of sources means the band isn't notable enough. Deserted Cities 04:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly well known band in the UK, and they've received quite a bit of coverage, for example from the BBC, Gigwise, Drowned in Sound, and DiS again.--Michig (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for finding those references. I didn't find them in my initial search. It would be of great help if they could be added to the article. For now, I'll withdraw the nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per above comments and newly found references. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added these. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been found since the article was nominated for deletion, and the band appears to be notable per WP:MUSIC criteria #1 and possibly #4. snigbrook (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources now present are adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color light acupuncture[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable, fringe, alt med treatment which makes no claims of notability and has no WP:RS. Clear advertising introduced by a WP:COI and probable copyright concerns despite disclaimer. Verbal chat 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: As Derek said, alternative practices should be described here, regardless of whether they have been conclusively proven or disproven yet. All other issues with the article can be fixed through trimming, adding, or editing.Tanesh333(talk)11:01 PM 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Tanesh333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: per above, no WP:RS in respected peer-reviewed journals listed. Leuko (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not Delete this page, the issues above have been resolved. User: Roger13Zimmerman, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. Verbal chat 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be resolved?--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly straightforward speedy delete (for advertising). This is utter nonsense without WP:RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utter nonsense, unsupported by any scientific data. The article is in fact a platform for one company's advertising. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. The article has now been substantially improved, and no longer relies solely on material lifted from a single company's publicity material. That doesn't change the fact that the therapy is nonsense unsupported by any science, but there are now at least some reliable sources referred to in the article. Colorpuncture is nonsense, but it is nonsense that does exist, and that is good enough for a WP article! But I deplore the sock-/meatpuppetry that is so much in evidence on this AFD page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs )

Keep it may be utter nonsense, but like other alternative practices deserves a place here where it can be described for what it is. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded and reworked some of this article, using subheads similar to Aromatherapy. Apart from the long list of further reading, I think the article is now mostly neutral, devoid of advertising and has enough references to show its notability. Lets not confuse the validity of the practice with the validity of the article, which is about a treatment many people seem to be using and others may want to learn about. Admittedly it still needs work, but I don't now believe it should be deleted.Derek Andrews (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added sources were to ad-sites and purported studies that, upon perusal, consisted of a list of unfounded claims on efficacy sprinkled with "mind / body connect" stuff and two testimonials thinly veiled as case studies. No indication of independent coverage, no clinical trials, etc. Edits reverted as they lack reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this alternative practice to be notable. Also WP:CB.Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsensical non notable advertising. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Color light acupuncture, or colorpuncture has been studied for decades. There are many alternatives to using needles to stimulate acupuncture points that are all well accepted, such as: acupressure, heat, EFT, micro- electric stimulation, even magnetism. Therefore it is unscientific to just assume that light can not be used to stimulate acupuncture points. I have put numerous references up for this article that discuss the research done on colorpuncture, and they keep getting deleted. I believe there are unfair biased readers that are trying to take down this article. Even if there isn't 100% proof that colorpuncture works, it needs to be given a chance, like every other new field. And besides that even drugs on the market that are approved by the FDA are not considered "proven" until they stood the test of time and results. Also not believing that colorpuncture works or not is not a reason to take down this article, as Wiki is meant to be for a definition of what it is, for example "God" is listed in Wiki, there isn't 100% proof that God exists or not, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I am very disappointed in how this article has evolved. Also if there are minor incorrect statements, such as use of the word "scientifically proven" and there are only 2 references stated, this is not a reason to delete my statement and to delete the 2 references, I need to be given a chance to either remove the work "scientific" or to add more references. Also, I had numerous further readings that were deleted, again this is someone that is biased against this article. Someone also stated that this should be included under "Alternative medicine", there are hundreds of alternative medicines, that all deserve their own article, trying to capture all of them in one article is insane. Use some common sense before you consider deleting this article. roger13zimmerman: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of this treatment is a secondary issue compared to the lack of reliable sources. There is 1 third party source, a puff piece in the Taipei Times. Nothing else. Wikipedia is not addspace for snake oil.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Actually, Wikipedia already has Snake oil... As to the procedure, I regard it (so far) as twaddle. However, I regard Homeopathy as even worse twaddle, but which is so widespread as to merit articling. This could be merged into Accupuncture. As it stands at time of posting this, it doesn't appear to be too much of an advert. I'll keep a watch on developments from my uncomfortable perch on this fence. Are the lights any good for curing numb bum? Peridon (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added research articles from The American Journal of Acupuncture. They do indicate that there are good results that indicate that Color light acupuncture can promote healing. I re-iterate my argument again for the last user calling it "Snake Oil", which is that an area of practice does not need to be scientifically proven or not to be a topic for an encyclopedia. How many decades was "global warming" considered unscientifically proven before they finally agreed and accepted it (most scientists do, but some still disagree on it). Had Wiki existed back when the "global warming" debate started, would it's position be "Global warming is not scientifically proven so just delete any articles on global warming". Think about it before you delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Roger13Zimmerman (talk · contribs) has now voted to keep three times. When considering for consensus keep in mind this one user represents 3 of the 4 keep statements.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My misunderstanding of how this process works, I changed my input to "comments" and left only 1 as "keep" --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not even the NCCAM mentions this practice. QuackWatch gives it (or something similar) two lines, but no other independent source appears to have noticed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with an eye to merging it with a Variations of acupuncture article. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam-originated articles merit an additional level of scrutiny. No sufficiently independent evidence of notability has been proffered. NTK (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I search "Color light acupuncture" on google there are almost 14,000 results. Many of them are acupuncturists that also practice "Color light acupuncture", I'd like to reference them on Wiki, but it would likely be considered a conflict of interest and get deleted. People are using Color light acupuncture and are having positive results. It is senseless to deny anyone else from learning that it exists by deleting this article. The American Journal of Acupuncture is a notable reference.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable, not notable. Google hits are meaningless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only a single puff-piece from outside the acupuncture community = no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSICOP seems have noticed the topic; [6]. Logos5557 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a fair amount of proof to prove that color light acupuncture is a legitimate treatment and even if isn't proven it is still a real life treatment that some people believe and therefor does deserve an article. --WitKid (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)— WitKid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Come on guys it's still a valid topic that deserves an article.--Aaron.c.zimm (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)— Aaron.c.zimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Aaron.c.zimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Suntanning is good for you, is it so preposterous that lights can help you? There is proof given on the article so I see no reason why it shouldn't be kept.--Pyroball (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Pyroball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep or merge to Acupuncture or Color therapy. I've moved the title to Colorpuncture as that is the name per nearly all the sources. I have tidied it up and add sources such as the Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Dictionary, Time Out. Roger13Zimmerman reverted; surely it's just a coincidence that the owner of Roze Company, who use the term "color light acupuncture", is called Roger Zimmerman?[7] Fences&Windows 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Is it just me, or does this AfD smell of socks? Fences&Windows 23:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colorpuncture sounds like it could work, keep the Colorpuncture article, and keep posting results of tests here. Whether it works or not, keep the results for all to see, and make their own conclusion, nothing in alternative health is ever black and white. --LesaLC (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — LesaLC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I concur there are socky things afoot. Simonm223 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the users stating there are socky things afoot if you are referring to me, I have not claimed to NOT be part of Roze Company. I have used my own name as my user name. I have called this practice both Color light acupuncture and Colorpuncture on my website, so I don't have any conflicts of interest with either name. And just because I am trying to make a living on a practice that I believe in, should not be a reason that Colorpuncture doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. The fact that myself and many other are applying this practice is even more of a reason that it should be on Wiki. And for the Nth time, just because a practice is not 100% scientifically proven is not a reason to try to hide that it even exists. There are many articles on Wiki that are not scientifically proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.133.115 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It seems that you may not be familiar well with wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to WP:Paid, if there is a "paid editing", for a fair game, "All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page". WP:COI. Logos5557 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest. Seems to be a large population of socks and meatpuppets as well. --M^ask? 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this page even being considered for deletion anymore? All problems seem to be fixed. Close this discussion please. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that most comments for deleting this article are because the user does not believe colorpuncture is an effective practice. Wiki has an article for Emotional Freedom Technique and is has both positive and negative research references under "Studies" and it has a "Criticism" area. I suggest doing the same thing for this Colorpuncture article. I'd do it, but someone would likely just delete it anyway, so I suggest someone else do it. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)--[reply]

Comment Wiki's rules are that the merit of the comments in this section are more important than the number of votes either way. So I'd like to present some relevant information here. I had a reference to an article on The American Journal of Acupuncture (which was deleted) that stated that there were "dramatic" improvements in the symptoms from the colorpuncture treatments:

The American Journal of Acupuncture Vol. 24, No. 2&3; Vol. 25, No. 2&3; and Vol. 27, No. 1&2

A Review of Recent Research Studies on the Efficacy of Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy – A Wholistic Acu-Light System

Abstract: This article reviews recent studies conducted in Europe, which sought to evaluate the effectiveness of Peter Mandel’s Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy (ECT). These investigations addressed the use of specific ECT therapies for treating a variety of difficult health problems: migraines, childhood insomnia, bronchitis, ADD or learning disorders, and uterine fibroids. Limitations in research design and sample size necessitate that these studies be viewed as pilot or preliminary research. However, in all the studies, the findings showed dramatic improvement of symptoms after ECT treatments. This suggests that ECT may offer fast, economical, non-invasive and non-toxic methods for treating the selected health problems and that ECT continues to show promise as a powerful new method of wholistic healing.

I am sure I could find many more "positive" articles on colorpuncture, and possibly "negative" articles. And as per my last comment, the reader should have the right to see both types of research. Wiki is meant to be neutral, which in my mind, means that the reader should be presented both sides and allowed to make their own opinion. It is not for Wiki's users to decide what is "correct" and only present that side of an article.

In alternative medicine, or even western medicine the conclusion of the effectiveness of any medicine or treatment is almost never definitive. That doesn't mean the medicine or treatment isn't worth discussing.

--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The American Journal of Acupuncture may not be considered as reliable third-party source. The notability of the topic should be proved/established in the first place, not whether it works or not. If the topic is notable, then the information can be presented in a neutral fashion. WP:GNG. Logos5557 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiki's definition of "Non-notable or nn mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type."

Colorpuncture is not "obscure" - if you type "colorpuncture" in Google you get 8,150 pages, and if you type in "color light acupuncture" you get 13,900 pages. There are many people practicing it worldwide. It can be easily differentiated from any other type of acupuncture. So can anyone say why this page is still being considered for deletion? --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the results of the research were very positive (or negative), why remain neutral and not say if the results were good or bad? This is hiding info from the reader. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reference to scientific articles and futher readings on colorpuncture were deleted from this article, yet the following unscientific statement remains in the article: "I had some weird shit happen to me during the treatment". It seems like there is a bias towards deleting any good info and leaving up things that make the colorpuncture practice look bad.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiki's Definition of Neutral is: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

This states that "all views" are published by reliable sources. That means positive or negative views can be published. So the users that deleted my positive research articles on the basis of "neutrality" please put them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were included willy-nilly, that's why I removed them. I'll think about adding them back, but Wikipedia doesn't need to include every primary source on a topic; we base articles on secondary sources. And the "some weird shit" quote is actually supportive of colorpuncture... Fences&Windows 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article now seems to be neutral and well-enough sourced to me. It may be nonsense, but it appears to be notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it is probably pseudoscience. Yes, there's a COI with Roger13Zimmerman. Yes, this deletion discussion is full of sock/meatpuppets. But none of those are good reasons to delete. The article is sourced and rewritten now, so "not notable" is also not valid, and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks doesn't apply either. Argue to merge if you don't want an individual article on this topic, but arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy. Fences&Windows 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: no, the "independent" (i.e. from outside the acupuncture community) coverage is not "significant" -- it is just a handful of bare/brief mentions, so no, "not notable" is most certainly valid, and so is a a valid reason for deletion. Your claim of "prejudice, not policy" has no basis in either the facts or WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to argue for deletion in good faith, but I find it very tedious to have AGF quoted at me when deletion votes of this kind are being deployed: "This is utter nonsense without WP:RS", "Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel", "obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest". These arguments are weak and kneejerk, though there was the mitigating circumstance of Roger Zimmerman's obvious COI and POV editing. Famousdog below gives a much more nuanced argument, though damages their case by saying "I'd not heard of it", which is always a terrible argument. Notability is not a dichotomy; this therapy, however pseudoscientific, has gained significant coverage in reliable sources, it has mentions in several more reliable sources, it has published results - though I do worry for the reputation of the journals - and it has gained a fair amount of attention in the alternative health literature. If despite this coverage by independent sources one feels that the topic is insufficiently notable to stand alone, then a reasonable editor following WP:PRESERVE will consider a merge target. We have two: Color therapy and Acupuncture. I favour the former if it comes to a merge. To delete there needs to be a convincing argument for why Wikipedia should have no mention of this therapy despite all the sources that we can find that discuss it. Fences&Windows 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It you don't want the 'tedium' then don't make sweeping statements like "'not notable' is also not valid" & "arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy". The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with me, but don't patronise me.

"The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability." That's a sweeping statement. Not all alternative health publications will be financially or otherwise connected to Colorpuncture, and some will have a reputation for fact checking. Coverage of an alternative health therapy in the alternative health press is some indication of notability - it'd strengthen the argument for deletion if they hadn't covered it, but they have. Fences&Windows 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about possible socks/meatpuppets. After noticing the activity above by several one-edit newbies, and the comments about possible sock activity, I have placed a request on the pages of these users asking for comments:

Roger13Zimmerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.147.133.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pyroball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LesaLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aaron.c.zimm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WitKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clarity is always a good thing. It might be a good idea for everyone to watchlist these users. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. They are from the same connection, and have been admitted as meat-puppets (at least). Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Acupuncture This is very fringe of the fringe stuff. Even as somebody with an amatuer interest in altmed and a professional interest in color vision, I have never heard of this. For those users arguing that it is "notable enough to be written about", look at the sources! A lifestyle piece for Time Out, a few papers from acupuncture journals (which are usually written, reviewed and edited by believers/practitioners), the Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare (mind boggles), the Chinese Medical Times (acupuncture is a source of national pride to the Chinese, which leads to a severe publication bias) ... Suffice to say this is weak evidence of efficacy, but it is also pretty weak evidence of notability. Get rid. Famousdog (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Acupuncture~~. Changed to Keep or Merge to Acupuncture. ~~Notability of the topic is not strong enough to justify a separate article.~~ It seems notability is on the edge. Although I still think that merging to Acupuncture would be the best choice, as there would be more eyes on when it's a subheading of that article, so that possible recursive spammings/adverts from some magical equipment manufacturers can be undone more rapidly, the other option is to "let it serve as a warning to potential users" as mentioned below by a user. Logos5557 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - enough sources in a variety of places to merit a sentence on the acupuncture page, but that's about it. There's no WP:MEDRS to justify any claims of effectiveness, therefore no need to describe its process. Could easily be a single sentence "Variations of acupuncutre include colorpuncture (the use of colored lights instead of needles)..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it is justified to try and apply WP:MEDRS to an alternative medicine therapy. While I am not opposed to a merge, I am of the opinion that there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's totally justified, as MEDRS is for medical articles. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about these? [8], [9], [10], [11] (click to page 177) Logos5557 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article making medical claims gets WP:MEDRS applied to it, otherwise alternative medical articles have an unfair advantage regards claims of effectiveness over real medicine. Those google books sources only mention the technique, they do not discuss in detail, provide any substantive information, and certainly don't support any claims of efficacy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, this article doesn't make any medical claims, it merely describes a practise that has been in use for several decades. The article, as it stands, is a good warning to anyone considering using it, that they should proceed with caution. Is it not better that this article exists to counter misleading marketing for the practise? Derek Andrews (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion under way at MEDRS talk about references for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin – User:LesaLC, User:Tanesh333, User:Pyroball, User:Aaron.c.zimm, User:WitKid have all been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of User:Roger13Zimmerman (who has been blocked for 1 week for engaging in sock puppetry). MuZemike 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly the actual procedure is no more than one way among many of fleecing the vulnerable and gullible sick of their cash. But it certainly does exist. Having said that, in my view it is merely one among a myriad of charlatan-practised procedures and, as such, is not intrinsically notable. Very few meaningful Ghits and I, as a medical practitioner in the UK, have never heard of it. Closing admin please note that the author is the same editor who appears in a variety of sockpuppet guises throughout this discussion, who clearly shows a conflict of interest. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the originating author's work to whom you refer has now been deleted or modified.Derek Andrews (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid. Ghits are irrelevant. Nobody is trying to argue that it has intrinsic notability; the argument to keep or merge is based on coverage in sources. Fences&Windows 00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates most of the content policies I can think of and looks like no chance of saving. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to state which policies and how it violates them? Fences&Windows 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't reveal enough notability. Fringe kicks in quite a bit. This is really scrapping at the bottom to justify anything on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable form of nonsense, delusional thinking, utter BS, pseudoscience, and quackery. Its notability is very adequately established by numerous fringe sources. (That's where our sourcing rules for FRINGE articles apply. Fringe sources create the notability.) How those sources are to be used in the article is governed by WEIGHT (IOW not much at all since they aren't WP:MEDRS, while the few mainstream sources that give it very passing mention are given prominence). Keep it and let it serve as a warning to potential users who are getting suckered by false advertising. This is an unfortunate part of the sum total of human knowledge and belief, and at Wikipedia it is our job to cover it all, including nonsense. Brangifer (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep notable enough to keep, barely. Numerous fringe sources are enough for articles on fringe. Many of the delete arguments do seem to be based on the fact that this is even stupider than the average, which is something aI heartily agree with, but it doesn't affect notability for our purposes. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McEntagert[edit]

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

Fails WP-ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plays in the seventh tier of English pro football. Falls well short of WP:ATHLETE. Cmprince (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has never played in a fully-pro level of football, thus failing WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't played at a professional level Spiderone 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar. Tone 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Mirkwood[edit]

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

As yet unreleased, non-notable, software, fails GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A properly announced (not some vague rumours) expansion of a notable MMORPG, which has received attention in reliable sources around the world. E.g. Belgian newspaper "De Morgen"[12], Wired [13], and numerous specialized magazines and websites (65 Google News results). Crystal does not mean that we shouldn't have articles on unreleased software, as evidenced by the line "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Since we have different reliable sources explicitly about this expansion (so no passing mentions), it meets the GNG and doesn't fail crystal. Fram (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something that doesn't exist yet does not gain notability by transference from a notable predecessor. It is not yet knowable whether this game will ever be released, let alone independently notable, which it certainly is not now. There's certainly nothing in Fram's links that establishes an unusual level of anticipation that merits inclusion on that basis. NTK (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreleased things can still be notable. We don't have to be certain that X will happen, there just has to be a clear announcement with concrete information in reliable sources. "We are working on a new version / expansion" is insufficient: "we have a new expansion ready, this is its name, here are the demos, and it will be released in the next few months for that price" is good enough (for crystal, not for notability), even if it ultimately never materializes. this never happened either (but is obviously very notable). And why would you want an unusual level of anticipation? Don't the normal WP:N rules not apply to announced things? Anyway, I know that Google numbers are not sufficient, but if you want an unusual level of anticipation, over half a million Google hits may satisfy you[14]. Fram (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMHO very few unreleased games etc are notable, Beatles Rock Band maybe, and merely a high level of expectation, even in half a million Ghits, does not amount to "significant [my emphasis] coverage in reliable sources". Why do we need an article on this now - can we not wait to see if it does indeed become notable post-release and create the article then? – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main Shadows of Angmar article as long as the expansion itself isn't released. When the expansion pack hass been received some more public attention a standalone might be due. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply merge to The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar with an appropriate citation. Marasmusine (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Holly[edit]

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

Contested prod about an animated internet special. A Google search mainly led to hits that only mentioned the subject in passing, and this doesn't seem to have coverage outside of Santa Monica College. All but one of the external links are to front pages of websites, and the article itself suggests the special isn't even in development yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - I have a feeling that this is really a WP:CRYSTAL issue... an article on something that may become notable, but isn't yet. I find no coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. Perhaps this will change in the future, in which case the article can be re-created. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's not notable now, it's not suitable for inclusion. Its recency is only further reason for deletion given its dubious reach. NTK (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Nabeel Al Ahmad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article lacks independent sourcing, and does not indicate that the subject meets WP:Bio guidelines. also looks for sources cant find any he not listed on Kazma article and i cant any sources he played for Kuwait Under-17 team at any time it look slike he is a nn youth player not played at the top level of soccer/football. the first afd request did not go Thur properly sorry Oo7565 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Couldn't find any evidence of notability.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why are there two open AfDs for this one article? Giant Snowman 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator must have submitted it twice by accident. Anyway, this player is clearly non-notable as he hasn't made an appearance at senior level. Spiderone 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment yeah submitted it twice by accident. i thought for what ever reason it did go tthough the first time it did not show up anywhere thats why i did it again sorry my fault.Oo7565 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you withdraw the first nomination we will be able to close it. Giant Snowman 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i withdrew the first one i thinkOo7565 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the first nom down using WP:NAC. Giant Snowman 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A3 and G2. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slackle[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is simply a dictionary definition of a neologism. TN X Man 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongbar Industries[edit]

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

The article was PRODed with "Unreferenced and unwikified, tagged for notability since August without improvement". As it had previously been PRODed I'm moving to AfD. I also have suspicions about self-publicity, the creator is West.kgb2, and the article refers to key people Gordon West, President and W.H.K. West, Founder. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and apologies for any confusion that was caused in good faith. Durova³¹⁸ 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:CORP.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promises of reference from the article's creator have not materialized in >1 months time & I haven't found any useful sources myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Thaddeus. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pc mover[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mover - a popular MS Windows-based software for the Moving and Storage Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshoy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mover - a popular MS Windows-based software for the Moving and Storage Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshoy (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes the article says that, but is it notable? – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also under {{db-g11}}. Article is an advert which fails to establish notability of the subject. Article also goes onto a tangent about the American Moving & Storage Association, but notability is not inherited. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time to review my article. Please keep in mind that this is an initial version and there is more to come. Any of your feedback is appreciated. Hello from NYC. Nshoy (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under g11. I initially put this up for "prod", but it has become clear that this is an advertising attempt. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated urban water management (IUWM)[edit]

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

WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I would suggest merging to Integrated Urban Water Management, but there isn't a single page that links to that article, so I'm prodding it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there are now three articles linking to the IUWM page I created today and the title does not have the acronym anymore. If you could kindly point out what areas of the article do not satisfy WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis, I will address them.--Miguelaaron (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to merge with a three-year old article titled, i.e. Integrated Urban Water Management that has been abandoned. I would suggest nominating this article for deletion rather than my article Integrated urban water management which is new and of relevant and useful content to water practitioners in the field.--Miguelaaron (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't want to delete this article, because you created it! Anyway, removing the acronym doesn't really change the situation here. It's not that it isn't well-written; it's that it comes across more as an essay (or maybe even an ad) instead of an encyclopedia article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it has better information in it now than it did when I nominated it, but it's still difficult to tell because it reads overall more like a commentary relating to it than as an encyclopedia article about it. Originally it resembled an article that someone might write with the title "Pigeons" that, instead of beginning by explaining what a pigeon is and providing general information about pigeons, began, "Many cities are troubled by the large number of pigeons that live in them." For example, you don't tell us what the topic is until the third paragraph#8212;and even there, you worded it to make it look like the topic is "a paper published by the United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP)" rather than IUWM. Take a look at WP:Lead section and consider moving the third paragraph, with the accompanying bullet points, and rewording the first sentence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I have reworded a bit and moved the third paragraph into the lead. The goal here is to generate a "stub" or snapshot that that can be linked to from other urban water mgmt. articles. and quickly summarizes the few major descriptions of IUWM and approaches in addressing / implementing IUWM into urban water mgmt. planning.--Miguelaaron (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I withdraw my nomination for deletion. The article has really shaped up. I understand my withdrawal is nonbinding, but my original concerns are, in my opinion, obsolete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the "nomination for deletion" box from the top of the article as well.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither yours nor mine to do. I'm restoring it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your restoring the box or the nomination for deletion? If you have no more grievances and withdrawn your nomination, why do you care that I take it off? OK, so I will leave it there. When does it come down and who does that? Please explain.--Miguelaaron (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are the rules of the process. The person who nominates an article for deletion doesn't own the process, nor does the article's author. Once it's begun, the community owns it and it goes by the rules. See WP:Articles for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough.--Miguelaaron (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some of the arguments advanced during the discussion are a bit on the weak side, but consenses is nonetheless in favor of retaining the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanley Grange[edit]

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

Article for a planned town where the plans were shelved. The place is not, never was, and will not be. While there is press coverage, a cancelled planned development has no enduring historical notability. Ray^Talk 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't know about "will not be" (the outlook doesn't look though). Although articles about cancelled ideas do exist (Russia Tower, for example), I couldn't find enough reliable coverage here to avoid crystal ballery. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more sources, but the size of the development and the conflict around it seem to support notability. It was also shortlisted (among 15) to compete for government eco-town (UK) grants. Compare to Atlantic Yards, another (much larger) project that has been started and stalled because of development concerns. Cmprince (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs addition of sources (here are a few for ease of access: [15], [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], ) but the fact that something was planned and a source of controversy or debate can definitely be notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. For example, the Strait of Gibraltar crossing and Orkney Tunnel among planned tunnels; theme parks/entertainment venues which never were built, e.g., Disney's America, SugarHouse Casino; and residential developments, e.g., Omni Development, Criterion Place, and Central Village, Liverpool. --Milowent (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The idea of eco-towns is a significantly notable ongoing concept, and even if none of them ever get the the go-ahead, it's attracted by far enough attention to qualify here. I'm not sure whether enough can be written about individual proposals to warrant one article per proposed eco-town, but most or all of this information is notable enough to go somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am far from sure that many of the present government's eco-towns will ever be built, but if they are they will certainly be notable settlements, though whehter they will really be "eco-" seems doubtful to me. They are real government proposals, not a pipedream from an architect's office, so that the article should exist. If it does get built, the presetn content will no doubt be relegated to a section on opposition to its creation, but that remains to be seen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is of long term interest. Rosser Gruffydd 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion seem to focus on the lack of secondary sources covering the topic, but as these appear to have been provided, I think it is safe to close this as "keep". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East[edit]

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

This article lacks verifiability because there are no reliable, third-party sources. It therefore also fails the general notability guideline ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") as well as the more detailed notability guideline for films. Was created in April 2007 by a now-banned user who engaged in regular POV pushing. *** Crotalus *** 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—even the article has a reliable third party source, and if you want more, pick one of the 79,100 Google results. The documentary appears in all major online film databases, and has been a subject of numerous reviews. It further concerns me that the nominator used "was created ... by a now-banned user" as one of his arguments, as if that somehow invalidates the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the "Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle" a reliable source? They look like a random website — where is the evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Yes, there are lots of Google hits — that proves nothing. We need reliable sources, not random webpages. Can you cite any reliable, third-party sources that specifically discuss the film (not merely mention it in passing)? When I googled "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace" (in quotes), I found a bunch of blogs, self-published webpages, bittorrent sites, etc., but nothing that I would classify as a reliable source in this context. Numerous reviews — where are they? I want evidence, not vague generalities. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless neutral third party sources can be provided establishing satisfactory notability.--TM 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the number of non-banned editors who have worked on the article since its creation. Not a surprise that a docummentary titled Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel might receive coverage in Jewish reliable sources... Jerusalem Post, Jewish Journal, Forward... but it has been written up in non-Jewish reliable sources as well... Oakland Tribune, Miami Herald, and The Age, but to note only a few. It appears the author has not edited the article since September of 2007... so if there are concerns about article sourcing or tone, that would seem to be a matter for cleanup... not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, founded in 1921, does not seem quite random to me. WIkipedia does not denigrate the Washington Post if it writes about Washington, DC activities... nor Times of India if they write about something of interest to India. Articles about a documentary of interest to someone Jewish, might quite reasonably be found in Jewish press. That does not invalidate the coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manan trivedi[edit]

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

Not clear that this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Every candidate for an office will be reported in the local media; the guideline makes it explicit that this is insufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback -- Trivedi is actually getting international attention for this run because of his place in the Indian immigrant community. He is also generating national attention because he is an Iraq war veteran. If I find more sources to corroborate those non-local stories, will that be helpful? --Kalipoli (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now I don't see that you have any sources at all that indicate national or international attention, though I may have missed something. Yes, that would help. But I don't know what you mean when you refer to "his place in the Indian immigrant community" or what its significance is. A biographical article on Wikipedia needs to provide the information about a person that indicates why it makes sense to have an article about him preserved in an encyclopedia, and needs to provide neutral, third-party reliable sources of the sort called for in the guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really appreciate your patience here. I've added a score of new links from some of these international sources. Also I think his role in helping to shape national health policy (both as an advisor to the Surgeon General of the Navy and with President Obama) should not be overlooked in this process. --Kalipoli (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Wikipedia needs to turn into another social networking site for candidates to advertise their campaign. Not a good idea at all. He is a veteran which is honorable but he has done nothing notable beyond that. This page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.148.185 (talk • contribs) — 68.83.148.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nominator no significant mentions in third party sources and candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klevis Bejtja[edit]

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

No assertion of notability made in the article as the league isn't fully professional Spiderone 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Spiderone and GiantSnowman. No assertion of notability and the league isn't professional. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erald Turdiu[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as the Albanian Superliga isn't fully professional. I know this article says he's a "professional football player" but this needs to be proved ideally. Spiderone 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. You can still be a professional footballer, even if you play in a semi-pro league, but ATHLETE says the league must be fully-pro, which the Albanian Superliga isn't. Giant Snowman 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Spiderone and GiantSnowman. No assertion of notability and the league isn't professional. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please delete this inocent animals killer. This is an excellent exemple of non-enciclopedic text. FkpCascais (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This has now been redirected, since the topic is relevant, there is no reason for deletion, discuss content on the talkpage. Tone 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)[edit]

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

1. This page already exists in the form Static Light Scattering.

2. It also already exists in the form Multi-Angle Light Scattering (which is really an introduction that duplicates the Static Light Scattering page).

3. The topic Differential Light Scattering is confusing. It is not a common light scattering technique. If the topic does merit an article in Wikipedia, the topic merits its own page.

4. The initials in the title are confusing (MALS and DLS). The initial DLS is more frequently used for dynamic light scattering.

5. The article is primarily commercial, focusing on the efforts of the Wyatt company.

6. The references are specialized, vanity references.

7. The original author, Wyatttech has not resolved any of these issues. Promised images have not been supplied. It is no longer reasonable to expect that they will be resolved.

LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss a merge, if necessary through WP:Dispute Resolution. AfD is not for editing questions, but probably we should start with a single good article. It is obvious there is relevant material here that is not in the other two articles--the history section,for example. Additionally, I at least, though certainly not an expert--it's been quite a while since I took the course in this--find the first 4 paragraphs of the theory section here , the part before the mathematics, here a good deal more informative than anything in the DLS article. On the other hand, the mathematics, and data analysis parts on the Static light scattering article, are much better. The separate Multi-angle light scattering article should probably be merged in as an introduction. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The history section is biased in favor of a single company. Note the links. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What do you mean when you write "DLS article" in your sentence about the theory? Do you mean dynamic light scattering? The math in dynamic light scattering is very different than what is written here. This article confuses a well-established technique (dynamic light scattering) with a much more minor technique (differential light scattering). And that confusion is part of why this article should not exist (my point 3). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do you think the issues with the article will be fixed now? They were not fixed after the first deletion discussion (the article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was removed) and move/merge discussion (move/merge was discussed on the talk page, but not implemented). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the raised problems have been fixed (by myself) within one minute. Afd is not an instrument for article improvement. On (1,2) Existence of several articles on subtopics of one field is not a reason for Afd - this one is strong enough to stand on its own. Multi-Angle Light Scattering was a stub which I merged into this article. Other mergers, if feasible are to be discussed elsewhere. (3) is not an Afd issue. The author has apparently proved by his references and discussion at talk page that this topic is notable. Afd is not an instrument to resolve scientific discussions (4) is fixed. (5) is unjustified. (6) defies WP:RS (7) Does not apply here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article looks like it can stand at the moment. However, has anyone made an effort to determine if the original version was copied from elsewhere? It looks suspiciously like a patent application. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion of Multiangle Light Scattering[edit]

It is surprising why so much effort has been expended to have this article deleted rather than improved. All known objections are addressed below, however, it should be noted that the scientific community has been much better served by those who have taken the initiative to edit the article rather than constantly nominate it for deletion:

1. This page does not already exist in the form of Static_Light_Scattering. This argument was refuted in the original discussion regarding deletion. SLS is a physical phenomenon while MALS is a method by which SLS is measured, and in particular, a method by which SLS measurements may be used to characterize molecules and particles.

The nominator does not agree with the refutation, hence the current process. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. While Multi-angle light scattering does address some issues, the present article is much more complete. As Materialscientist suggested, the Multi-angle Light Scattering article was a stub which has been expertly merged into this article.

The stub remained persistently unmerged until the deletion process began. While Materialscientist claims that a deletion proposal is not a mechanism to improve an article, the empirical evidence is the opposite. By the time this article is fixed, it will look astonishingly like the static light scattering article. I waited in vain to see if others would find a different path to fix the article and prove me wrong. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Lightscatteringguy’s point here (and in point 4) is very valid. Differential Light Scattering is an antiquated term (as addressed in the article) and should not have been included in the title. Editing by wikiusers has remedied this issue. The term itself within the article, however, is justified, as for a time it was a term of art and thus aids in the disambiguation between Dynamic Light Scattering and a MALS technique to which many references have been made in articles in the late 20th century.

Differential Light Scattering without the DLS abbreviation is much more clear. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. As mentioned in #3 above, the use of DLS as an acronym for the antiquated term Differential Light Scattering could be considered confusing. This is another proper argument for the editing of the article – not for its deletion.

see above. I do not see much merit in editing an article that should not exist. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. The article is not primarily commercial in nature. There amounts to one entire sentence in the article dedicated explicitly to Wyatt instrumentation. While other references are made, it is indisputable that Wyatt played an important part in the development and commercialization of MALS instrumentation and analysis. To say that references to the company which aided in the innovation and development of the technique amount to a commercial entry is like saying that references it International Business Machines are inappropriate in the discussion of photocopying. It should be added that many references to other institutions who also pioneered MALS instrumentation are made in the article, and if there are innovations not cited, for example more references to Brookhaven Instruments, the article should be edited to include them, rather than constantly nominating the article for deletion. It should be noted that the article has been properly edited to include relevant information by developers and manufacturers of competing instrumentation, which only adds to the value of the entry.

Let us see what other editors have to say about this topic. Some disinterested admin will need to make that decision (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed). LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Admittedly, the point about vanity references is not fully understood. All articles are originally penned by a single individual, and said individual has the experience of her/his own experience. If other references are valid, they should be added, but it cannot be held against the author that s/he has not read every article on a given subject and is instantly required to recall and reference them. Each citation is relevant and supports the discussion appropriately.

Well, reference 18 was created as the basis of a few advertising campaigns and would be better served by citing, for example Chemical Abstracts. I cannot figure out why reference 13 is relevant. Also, see smokefoot's discussion on references and conflict of interest on the article discussion page. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. The article has been edited, but is it truly the sole duty of the original author to improve wiki articles? Previous arguments have been addressed, and it had been thought, satisfactorily. However the efforts of a single wiki-user/editor to have this article deleted rather than improved has proven problematic. The issue of the figures is an unfortunate one. The originally intended images have been delayed (some indefinitely) as it is not yet certain which would meet the strict Wikipedia copyright requirements. References to the figures no longer appear in the article, but may be replaced if/when it is believed that the relevant figures are available and deemed to satisfy the wiki-requirements.

I have submitted two deletion requests. The first was removed without discussion, which is consistent with how I understand the rules. This is the second, and to my understanding "real" discussion. And, I did not submit the second until others were given a chance to change the direction of the article. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues raised in this discussion: The history section favors a single company: This is believed to be untrue, as addressed in section 5 above. Further, if there is history relevant to the development of MALS instrumentation and measurement, the article should be amended to include it. Dynamic Light Scattering is distinct from MALS, and the equivalency of DLS to “differential light scattering” no longer appears in the article. This article is original, however, it was penned initially for Wikipedia by an experienced patent agent, which may explain why Slawomir Bialy notices the similarity. It is believed that the above arguments address all of the outstanding issues relating to this article. These arguments, along with edits made to the article by other users, should put to rest the desire to have the entry deleted. It is therefore requested that the deletion consideration be removed. If it is still the belief of the objector that the article be removed, the decision will absolutely be appealed.

I note that the deletion template has been removed from the article. But, it seems early (the discussion should last 7 days). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. While I am anxious that a full discussion take place, I have not withdrawn the submission. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has its merits and merger may be a sensible option to preserve its valid components. Rosser Gruffydd 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into Islamism. Evil saltine (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism in London[edit]

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

This article appears to be a POV article, implicating the presence of muslims in London with the growth of Islamic terrorism. It may be a fork of Londonistan and 21 July 2005 London bombings. It's not particularly about Islamism in London either.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be an article on Islam in London & Londonistan (term) do we need another article on more or less the saem subject?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to *Redirect I agree this seems a better idea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islam in London. As Slatersteven says above, this is effectively redundant to that article and Londonistan (term) - it has no information that is not already in those articles. Robofish (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism
Keep The article does need expansion, (lots of articles do) but it is reliably sourced and significant. It has also been up for over two years and edited by many editors none of whom appear to have thought it problematic.Historicist (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londonistan should be focused on discussions that actually use that (highly political) term. Islamism in London has the potential to be a wider article encompassing many aspects of Islamization in metropolitan London.Historicist (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Islamism is a specific political doctrine; Islamisation is the process of conversion of a population to Islam. That's not happening in London, except in some feverish imaginations ;-).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not merge it with Islam in London?Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Islam is a religion and Islamism is a political ideology. It is not fair to London's non-Islamist Muslims Islam to crowd the Islam in London page with Islamism.Historicist (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A political ideology that grew out of Islam, preached in London mosques. It is part of Londons Muslim community, not some seperate entity that has no contact or connection with it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howevfer lets discuse the idea of merging this with the Islamism page itself as this has less to do with London then it does with a wider global movment.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually better than Islam in London because Islam in London doesn't cite any sources at all. I agree that we need one article on this subject and not two, and I think that "Islamism in London" is a plausible search term for "Islam in London".
I think that "Islamism in London" is going to be a redirect, not a redlink, so "delete" isn't going to be the outcome here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose to any merge which results in "Islamism in London" as the primary title. I have no objection to "Islamism in London" as a small subtopic within "Islam in London", but a merge with "Islamism" as the primary title is as inappropriate – and as offensive – as redirecting Christianity in the United States to Westboro Baptist Church, or Politics of the United Kingdom to British National Party. – iride scent 10:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was that Islamism in London would be a seperate catergary of Islamism, much in the same way as Islamism in Turkey is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to keep things clear, then, on the table are either merge (or redirect) into Islamism, as the page could have relevance as part of the wider phenomenon of Islamism, or into Islam in London. I would prefer a merge to Islamism; it's a sensitive topic and I would be concerned about WP:UNDUE and WP:POV if it were moved into Islam in London.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure whether this was intended to be a POV fork, but a) it would be far too easy to turn this into one, and b) it doesn't really say anything that isn't already elsewhere on WP. No objection to including substantiated incidents of Islamic extremism in another article (where there should be enough people watching to police it), but I agree that a redirect is probably not a good idea. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If kept, rename to Radical Islam in London or Jihadism in London. "Islamism" is not a term I have ever heard, and anyway the concept appears to be regarded by most Muslims as not part of true Islam (not that I know - being a Christian). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Islamism is a very distinct ideology. It should not be 'merged' with Islam in London - it must be kept as its own page. Binglelantern (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UT

What about the sugestion of merginig it with the the Islamisam page?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as nonsense, original research, implausible redirect. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to and less useful than the article at Bermuda Triangle. --Dynaflow babble 14:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting as near-nonsense; user has been posting several similar articles, mostly copyvios. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasound fetus determination[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original synthesis. Duplicates Obstetric ultrasonography. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is non-encyclopedic and very much an advice or opinion essay. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan, nom. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, not an advice column. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As far as I can tell, the arguments for keeping focus on what could come of the article, an don't address the issue of notability. Therefore consensus appears to side with deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Preparedness Games[edit]

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

Article offers no evidence of its subject's notability and thus runs afoul of WP:PRODUCT. --Dynaflow babble 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is apparently a variant of Snakes and Ladders aimed at a different didactic goal. Found some references for this[21] but the reference shows that it is quite obviously a variant of the traditional game, making this a content fork under an unhelpful title. A brief mention in the head article might be appropriate; the snakes and ladders game lends itself to all sorts of didactic purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a reference for this game - apart from this article. I've looked at the link given by Smerdis, and am not very sure that there is not a case for copyright infringement to be made. Peridon (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep I'd expect the original Snakes and Ladders game to be in the public domain, so no copyright problem. If sources for this game can be found it would be worth an article. It seems to be in India.Borock (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean the game as a copyright entity - I refer to the text of the indiatogether article..... Peridon (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short of anything reliable in the way of sources. Vaguely hedges on WP:SYN - but if anything it just smells a wee bit like it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I request you to keep the article as it is still under construction and will be near completion by this weekend. The theme of 'Snakes and Ladders' game has been adopted to teach common man about disasters. You will find more details about this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvarikulkarni (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD lasts for about a week - so I'd encourage you to work on it in the meantime. If you can fix it to meet the criteria, it's a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was note my comment at the bottom. DS (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autarch[edit]

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

not verifiable? Pollinosisss (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to a redirect to Autarchism. Even if it is verified, its nothing more than a dicdef. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert: The current article's claim seems unverifiable and a tad dubious. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's just because user:Autarch chided user:AbdulRayman for making an inappropriate edit... so AbdulRayman decided to redefine "autarch". I'm closing this AfD and leaving it as a redirect. DS (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, G7: Author requested deletion [22]. decltype (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coming past[edit]

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

Contested PROD: Forthcoming book that does not appear to be notable. I have looked for sources without any success at all. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the article creator's user name indicates a possible conflict of interest (similar to the book's author). --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation by Charles Matthews. GRBerry 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Alexander (minister)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced ~~BLP~~biography; tagged since Aug 2008 with no improvement. I searched, and all I could find were copies of this article (mirrors and clones). No clear assertion of notability. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per nom, but is it still BLP if the subject has been dead nigh on 20 years? --King Öomie 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plead not enough coffee. I *thought* "bio" and *wrote* "BLP". Mea culpa. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is SOME leeway on the actual "living" aspect, I just wasn't sure how much :P --King Öomie 13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no traces of references I can find and as such a failure of WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of any notability. Fails WP:BIO. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources, no articulation of notability, and a rather muddled biography to boot. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite my tendency to be sympathetic to Scotch Scousers, verification of notability sorely needed. . . dave souza, talk 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google Books search for "Bible Exposition Fellowship" does, in fact, turn up about two dozen pamphlets on different theological topics by Rev. Alexander. There are assertions in the article that these publications caused "controversy" and "outrage in many quarters", which if they could be verified in reliable sources might make a case for notability, at least within the world in which this sort of material is read. Unfortunately I can't find any such verifications meeting the requirements of WP:RS. It may not be surprising that this sort of material, decades old and mainly significant within a specific religious community,, is not easily found on the web, but that's where we are: an interesting article that describes a possibly notable person, but no reliable sources found to verify it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is much like that of Arxiloxos. In as much as he died in 1991, and apparently retired from ministry in 1978, I don't expect to find much online. What I quickly find doesn't persuade me one way or the other. However, regardless of the amount of sourcing, the history of this article starts[23] with a version that is a copyright violation of [24]. That page shows a date of October 2000, while our article was created in late 2007. So, speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12. I've flagged the article accordingly. GRBerry 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Adequate sourcing is present. With regard to WP:TRIVIA, from WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Evil saltine (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enochian chess[edit]

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

Non-Notable trivia about a game that has had no major impact or acceptance. Only reference is published by a descendant of the same group that created the game. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bubba73 (talk), 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have suggested a merger to chess variant, but the structure of that article is to have subpages for each such variant, so merger would require a complete overhaul for the sake of consistency. The references are adequate; the magical practices of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn are well documented, and a big deal in some circles, so it's not surprising they have descendants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that Golden Dawn has descendant is not the matter of this AfD. This chess variant, created by Golden Dawn is non-notable WP:Trivia regarding the org. That is the reason for the AfD.Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. FWIW, the Golden Dawn left an elaborate description of the game as one of their official teaching documents. I have expanded the article a bit with information from those documents, and also documented its actual use in play. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect to contributions to improve quality of article I still think it is a piece of WP:TRIVIA about Golden Dawn. All refs are golden dawn references. There is nothing to suggest the game has ever been played by a non-member. As such I don't think it is notable even with much improved refs. Notwithstanding that good job on the refs.Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. But for the structure of the chess variant page and its related sub-pages, as I noted above, I'd happily see this merged into it along with dozens of other minor chess variant articles. Only some of the sources are actually Golden Dawn sources; others are sources about the Enochian magical tradition, which predates it by several centuries. But all the sources have something to do with occultism. This particular chess variant requires a bit more elaborate description than some, if only because of the imaginative world that inspired it, so there's more to it than other chess variants that include various fairy chess pieces.

Now, the Golden Dawn is in fact a very big deal in the Western Mystery traditions of the English speaking world. They had unusually influential teachings and very prominent members. They were the Microsoft of the arcane. Being even a minor feature of the Golden Dawn magical tradition does confer notability, IMO, even if similar features of less foundational arcane traditions do not merit such recognition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm familiar with the topic and its notability is significantly larger than the article currently demonstrates; it's of significant interest to anyone wanting to gain an understanding of McGregor Mathers, the Golden Dawn, other Golden Dawn members (including Aleister Crowley or William Butler Yeats) or the culture of turn of the century occultist groups. It's illustrative of McGregor's personality, of the way the Golden Dawn (and to other extent other groups like the Theosophists) operated, and it ties in with other occultist topics such as the Enochian language, developments of the art of Tarot, and the growth and activities of subsequent Hermetic traditions. I have to confess, though, I'm not at this stage interested personally in improving the article to reflect all that. Failing a decision to keep - possibly move it to the article incubator? Or at the very least merge. It's topic that deserves Wikipedia space somewhere. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re references - I believe Israel Regardie's book on the Golden Dawn talks about Enochian Chess; I think Ellic Howe's book might as well. If it comes to it I suppose I'll get out my own references and improve the article. -- DustFormsWords (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe it is sufficiently notable. I've seen references to it in quite a number of books on chess variants, including Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. The "game" is also listed on the Chess Variants Pages.Smiloid (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just another chess variant, but considered an occult ritual by one on the most notable Western groups of that type. amples sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ihoyc and Edward321 that Order of the Golden Dawn is a notable organization well received and understood. But their chess variant still strikes me too much of WP:TRIVIA. If the order of the golden dawn had a special way of playing dominoes would that also be notable? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrezej Kunowski[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelinesfor notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marghuz Va'li Illustrated[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Marghuz Va'li Illustrated

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

Is this a family photo album? The only contents seem to be a series of pictures with captions extolling Prof. Dr. Taskeen Ahmad Khan and Prof. Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan. These gentlemen may be notable in their own right, but this article IMHO isn't. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced gallery with no encyclopedic use that (to be honest) could be being used as a slightly subtle form of spam. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is said "An Illustration Explains a Thousand Words." So this Section Must be Allowed to Thrive, Flourish etc. As it has been Already Mentioned by the Editors of this Section that they are Going to Gradually Paste & Put Images Relevant to the Geography, History, Contributions of the Most Renowned Figures etc. of the Village Marghuz throuhout the Periods (Indeed it would a Most Rare Collection of the Illustrations for the Public Display for the First Time). So let those Images Gradually Come with the Passage of the Time - so we must Wait with the Extreme Degree of the Patience. It is Highly Hoped that Each of those Images shall be Self Explanatory for a Thousand Words (with their Respective Captions too). It is also said "With Words I only Know. With Illustrations I Both Know & See. With Voice I Entirely Know, See & Hear." Conclusively this Section Must Never Ever be Deleted but Instead it Must be Allowed to Thrive, Flourish etc. & Encoureged too. So that we would be Able to See Some of the Facts of the Geography, History, Contributions of the Most Renowned Figures etc. of the Village Marghuz & their Relevany, Effects & Affects with the Geography, History, Contributions of the Most Renowned Figures etc. of the Entire Region & World throghout the Periods in a Particular Time Frame Each Time - about which Most of Us are Absolutely Ignorant so far. Such are also the Very Basic & Fundamental Aims & Objectives Behind the Creation of the Wikipedia etc. on the Net etc. (Internet etc.) i.e. to Share & Spread the Most Trust Worthy Knowledge in any Walk of Life & then Subject it to Open Discussion. The following Phrase is Quoted "Each Part of the World is like the Vital Organ of the Living Body of the Same Organism. Therefore the Health & Disease of any Part has all the Bearings on the Whole Body of that Very Organism." We all must be always knowing "The Eyes Do Not See which the Mind Does Not Know."

MarghuzVal' (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Fact Almost all the Critics are More Eager to Delete Even an 'Infintely Comprehenssive Section' (like 'The Marghuz Va'li Illustrated'). But they themselves are Less Ready to Bring Up any Alternative Information or Such a Section on that Very Subject for the Knowledge Thursty Individuals (such Critics are Just Live Frogs & Toads Dwelling in Right in the Rainy Ponds). Indeed One Must be Positively Critic but Never Ever Negatively Critic. It is Most Obligatory for the Negative Critics to Suggest a Solution too & Never Just Critising an Infinitely Excellent Section like 'The Marghuz Va'li Illustrated.'

GarMunaraVal' (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, although I'm finding it difficult to understand just what the heck is being spoken of here. It seems to me to be a collection of photographs that illustrate the history of an Indian village and its inhabitants. Well, if there's anything that meets our notability standards, let's have an article about that specific person/event/building/whatever; and if these people/events/buildings/whatever relate specifically to the village Marghuz, then that might be an appropriate category by which to sort them (I doubt it, but it might). This item, however, has no inherent notability that I can discern, there are no reliable sources provided, verifiability is entirely absent, and the article's creator seems to have a profound misunderstanding of both our criteria for inclusion and the rules of capitalization. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an image gallery hosting provider. The "article" doesn't contain any easily recognizable encyclopedic content, and its title suggests that it wasn't meant to. --Latebird (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Relevant information and images should go into the article on the village itself (Marghuz?). Joshdboz (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOST IMMEDIATE & HIGH/TOP PRIORITY.

Wikipedia

Respected Sir/Madam

If Possible Very Kindly Please Shift this Section to a Category Less than Deletion. This because as yet this Section is Under the Most Immediate Construction.

Thanking you Sir/Madam We remain

Yoiurs Vewry Sincerely

SwabiVal'

Comment It might be easier to understand with fewer Capital Letters. As It Stands, It has a Rather Eighteenth Century look. (Sorry, just trying to illustrate.) I couldn't face trying to delve into it tonight, but will look again tomorrow. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes

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

This appears to be original research and commentary/analysis on the part of the contributor, mixed in with possibly valid discussion of work by Peter Lynds. There may be parts that are salvageable or mergeable to Peter Lynds, or this might all be on the fringe. Acroterion _(talk) 12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious OR. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for putting your cutting-edge research and/or crackpot theories that you'd like to think are cutting edge. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so shall I remove the article straightaway, because the directive says I should not. I only wanted to share my paper with readers, removing personal references. Don't you think labelling something as crackpot without going into the detail is kind of unscientific and rude. If I say that wikipedia is not a place to showcase your personal erudition how will you feel? Just tell me if I have to remove the article and I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpsusmitaa (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a guideline or policy saying we don't like erudition, sure. Note that I was saying crackpot/cutting-edge research; you may well be a world-famous mathematician, I don't know. Ironholds (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, your remarks and your sarcasm violate multiple policies. Please assume good faith, please be civil, and please don't bite the newcomers. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've at no point assumed bad faith or been directly incivil. Do you see any rude words about? Or sarcasm, for that matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as per request by article's creator on his talk page, viz. "Please feel free to delete the article since I have been asked not to do this myself...", made at 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC). Article was a good-faith attempt, but author not sufficiently familiar with WP policies. His request meets the G7 criterion for speedy deleteion since the article's creator was the only contributor. Ohiostandard (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per above discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkpsusmitaa Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise: we're turning into judas by obeying rules, "men of science" such as himself are being oppressed and scientific free thought is close to extinction. Oh, and some people aren't getting published in peer reviewed journals. At the end of the day we're not peer reviewed journals, and we don't accept original research. Ironholds (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the lecture above. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ironholds, please do not get me wrong. We are playing into the hands of the usurpers, first by forming rules to suit them, and then by following their mindless rules. I know Wikipedia is not a place to submit original research. I already copyrighted the material way back. I wanted to share the ideas with others, so as to nullify the racket that peer-reviewed journals often become. The frustration is not because of not being published (grapes are not sour). The frustration is because I can see what is going on behind all those rules. By our inaction, despite us seeing the systemic anomalies, we are strengthening the hands of the usurpers and evil. Why not launch a sub-site where people could submit and have their ideas peer-reviewed? Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERMISSION GRANTED to do that with your own money and server space. 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So you knew that Wikipedia was inappropriate for this stuff - and then posted it anyway? On your head be it, as it were. Wikipedia is not a place for OR as you well know, and it isn't a place for soapboxing either. Your poor opinion of peer reviewed journals and however good your intentions may be inside your head are irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the information contained in my copyrighted material, legally obtained from the government. So technically am at liberty to share the information, removing all personal links, because I wanted people to ponder and improve the inputs I had already placed. I also learnt a little late that wikipedia does not do OR. I only knew wikipedia improves information by peer review and I knew this would serve my purpose. What would I achieve by keeping my work closeted until I could get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Let people share it anyway. Long before the ages of peer-reviewed journal people shared information just like that. So I should add a _now_ to my earlier comment to avoid confusion? 59.93.245.193 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, fair enough, misunderstood. Regardless, we don't do OR, and we only peer review articles based on secondary sources. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish to inform you that your way of conversation is not very civil. Maybe some book on etiquette will help you overcome your sarcasm? To me people who are deeply anguished by the society, or are frustrated, are sarcastic, otherwise we are here to complement each other, and that is chiefly how the society runs.

And peer reviewed journals are indeed in a mess in general. 59.93.255.100 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the irony there? "you aren't very civil, therefore you must be deeply anguished or frustrated". Why, that's not very nice! Feeling frustrated are we? Society doesn't run as an "everyone is nice to everyone else" - it isn't part of human nature. Pick up a book on sociology. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________

I am sorry. I would rephrase. Frustration and anguish are normal. People, who do not have a defence-mechanism against the anguish and frustration, will succumb, and I am empathising with you, not showing you the mirror. Sociology does not say men can not be superior. Society does not consciously know about complementarity. But half the human population does it, namely, mothers. Please, knee-jerk reactions can not help us. We need to outgrow ourselves.Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) ____________________________________________________[reply]

So you're saying I lack a defence mechanism now? I don't see how this is you trying to move away from making hypocritical personal comments. Not half the human population are mothers, and I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________

I am sorry. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________

I am not being able to request to move this page to my own user page. How to do it. I do not wish to lose the discussions Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator in favour of merge. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust[edit]

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

~~Notability of this organization not clear from the article. Only references priovided are primary sources. I'm seeing mentions in Google News but they appear to be from press releases.~~ RadioFan (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organization-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The hospital's full legal name is Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn in favor of the proposed merge.--RadioFan (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtea[edit]

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

Promotional article, thin on sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI problems, promotional. May have a great product, but this startup firm is is not notable at this time. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor. This article is supposed to be informational for business school students interested in business plan competitions. This company was one of the few that succeeded in the B Plan contests on their own - no Professor who had worked for 10 years developing the product, no venture capitalists writing the B Plan for them. I am mentoring several teams and wanted to have 1 general resource where anyone can go for a glimpse into what can make a business plan contest entrant successful - What was the idea? What are the founders backgrounds? What did the judges think? Someone interested in promoting the company added a few sentences promoting the company that we since edited. Other than that, I don't see why this would be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahertzy (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also appear to be Alex Herzlinger, one of the company founders mentioned in this article. I would commend you for the attempt to present a balanced article, but the company doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP, and the intentions in creating this article (information for business school students as a guide for winning the competition) don't fit with the goals of this project (creating a comprehensive online encyclopedia). -- Atama頭 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my comments above. -- Atama頭 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable as far as I can tell. Most of the refs are primary sources or opinion pieces. Rees11 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails real-world notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball close, no one, not even the nominator, has put forth a valid deletion reason, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Puffs[edit]

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

text keeps getting added to with material that is not true and offensive language is also being used Brayleino1 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vandalism not a reason for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid deletion reason Admrboltz (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously notable product, vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid argument given for deletion.--Michig (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. --Dynaflow babble 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, suggest WP:SNOW close - nominator has not presented a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep': Not a valid reason to delete. _Met^ty 14:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaluddin Khan[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced, notability not evident (engineer and school director). Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sources from which to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found several other people with the same name, but no RS refs for this person to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Official West Ham United Dream Team[edit]

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

This article contains no references to indicate why the subject is important or significant. In fact, even the article text barely suggests any semblance of notability. Furthermore, the table in the article is surely a violation of the book's copyright. – Pee Jay 10:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Winners are already listed (albeit uncited) in the main West Ham United F.C. article, runners-up is probably excessive detail and it's an unlikely search term for a redirect so Delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Chris; also a potential copyvio. Giant Snowman 10:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a significant subject. Surprised it lasted this long. Spiderone 10:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was no attempt made to discuss, merge, redirect or PROD this prior to going to AfD? AfD should not be the first resort here. I don't see why a merge or redirect to the main club article would be out of the question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if copyright is an issue, then surely those two options are ruled out? Also, I didn't PROD it because I felt that the discussion may be controversial. – PeeJay 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Factual data, which is basically what this is, is not generally considered to be copyrightable. The actual prose has not been lifted from a source so far as I can see. Anyway, I'd recommend redirecting this, optionally including the selected dream team in one of our myriad of West Ham articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As mentioned above, it's already included in the club's main article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) Factual data may not be copyrightable, but these are the results of a poll which were published in a copyrighted work. – PeeJay 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - IANAL, but from everything I've read polls still fall under the category of facts. (this is getting off-topic.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairweather (band)[edit]

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

Article on a defunct band with no independent sources cited, flagged as such for a year now. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the band being defunct is not a reason for deletion, and neither is a lack of sources in the article. Following WP:BEFORE might have found an Allmusic bio, two Allmusic reviews ([25] and [26]), and further coverage from punknews.org, The Michigan Times, and Exclaim!.--Michig (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any non-trivial reliable independent sources to add to those? User edited plus a couple of gig reports does not make for a decently sourced article about any subject, band or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these is user-edited? Allmusic, Exclaim! and The Michigan Times certainly are not, and they're all reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only fair to point out that The Michigan Times is a student newspaper, so may be considered unsuitable as a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two further reviews from Exclaim!, which certainly is a reliable source: [27] and [28], and one from Skratch Magazine, which may also be a valid RS: [29].--Michig (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC criteria #5, having released 2 albums on Equal Vision Records. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per Michig and Yilloslime _Met^ty 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William "Brian" Woods[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guideline; a minor traffic argument does not make someone notable. Can't be speedily deleted as it makes claims of significance (public reaction, news reporting etc). Somno (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --CPAScott (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of this article is a United States soldier who was killed in action in Afghanistan; however, Wikipedia is not a memorial and that alone would not be sufficient to justify an article about him. The "minor traffic argument" mentioned above (since removed from the article) relates to a single complaint submitted over Woods' funeral procession interfering with traffic, to which the Jefferson County, Missouri sheriff responded with an emphatic e-mail in response. ("While you were being inconvenienced in your car on your way home, there were soldiers just like Sergeant Woods carrying 100+ pounds of equipment in 120 degree heat, up some mountain or in the middle of some desert. ... It is my personal opinion that your complaint is self-serving and without merit.") It might be possible to write an article about the sheriff, Glenn Boyer, instead, since as a local official he presumably receives news coverage not just for this e-mail exchange but also for his other activities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eggys games[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated after speedy deletion for non-notability. All sources are self-published. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. I userfied the information for the editor, in the event of deletion.OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not meet notability threshold - cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions of this company in independent, reliable sources. Somno (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No independent sources found other than blogs, and given that it was created by User:Eggyeggy55555, it reeks of WP:AUTO. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete per above. Page protection may also be in order to prevent recreation of this article. --Teancum (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monotwin[edit]

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

Unsourced. Would seem to fail WP:BAND. No significant source coverage besides MyS and FB. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and lacking RS Whitespider23 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added extra info for more notability...please don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeLyn69 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Have updated with internal links to prove notability. One of the sections of the guide says you have to have been on air on a radio station for over half an hour. I have included a link to the show the band were on and also an internal link to the radio staion LeeLyn69 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This actually refers to broadcast radio stations, or syndicated national radio programs, rather than blog or internet radio stations. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It seems the general consensus suggests this individual is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Shine[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for that very reason. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Epbr123 said. Kevin (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . WP:PORNBIO is just a guideline. If it is passed, it ensures the actor notable. Viceversa is not true: the subject can be notable even if the guideline is not passed. In this case the number of commercially produced movies in which the actress had a role, as seen in the IAFD link for example, plus her being a cover girl for many magazines, means that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. If WP:PORNBIO is at odds with WP:ENTERTAINER, it is a WP:PORNBIO problem, not an article problem. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER states that a performer must have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". How does Sandra Shine meet this? Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER I knew was "significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I've seen now the wording has changed, but it seems a relatively recent edit (6th September). see diff. Under the current wording, I understand it fails, but how do we deal with such a moving target? Anyway, even if each one of the film is not particularly notable by itself, the size of her filmography, made with prominent studios, makes her quite clearly notable. She's also been Pet of the Month twice, as one editor correctly remembers below. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From numerous past discussions, the size of a porn stars filmography is clearly not enough to make them notable. Epbr123 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, quite counterintuitive. May I have a link to such discussions? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BIO: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion." In other words: IAFD and other databases build Fankensteins. Also per WP:BIGNUMBER. Algébrico (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a very prominent Hungarian porn model. Machomedia, the hungarian porn trade journal (both English and Hungarian versions), routinely cover her. Machomedia is considered a reliable source for coverage over Budapest-based productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her coverage on Machomedia seems quite trivial. These are the only articles about her on the English version: [30], [31], [32], and they don't contain much encyclopedic content. Epbr123 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the English version is not a translated mirror of the Hungarian version (or does not seem like it to me) and that there is much more content overall (without regard to Shine) on the Hungarian version. I would like some Hungarian editors to look into this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having been Penthouse Pet of the Month twice should establish notability alone. Wefa (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No intersections from reliable independent secondary sources (see: WP:FRANKIE). Being Penthouse Pet of the Month once or twice is only a trivial information and probably supported only by trivial sources. If there is no repercussion from independent reliable secondary sources about her being Penthouse Pet of the Month, it means nothing. Not notable per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (independent source is by definition more than one) and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Algébrico (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any support for the hypothesis that we're witnessing a case of WP:FRANKIE? I understand that's what can happen from careless use of sources, but is it the case? --Cyclopia (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Being Penthouse Pet of the Month once or twice is only a trivial information... If there is no repercussion from independent reliable secondary sources about her being Penthouse Pet of the Month, it means nothing.... independent source is by definition more than one..." ...without this uniquely Wikipedian form of illiterate literalism Deletionism could not flourish... Dekkappai (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dekkappai, as much as I can agree with you on how debatable are the article inclusion/deletion criteria used by AfD proponents, please stay into WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. There is no need to heat the debate, especially without bringing arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Sources aren't there. "Commercially produced" isn't something I recall seeing in ENTERTAINER. So, even if it was recently removed, I think it was probably added not too long before that. Moving target or not, this one doesn't qualify now. Lara 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Hájková[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, nothing to establish notability, doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. TheoloJ (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable model, no significant sources in Czech and English language. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2009 MTV Video Music Awards#Best Breakout Artist Awards. actually deleted but I added the redirect as requested Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Breakout New York City Artist Award[edit]

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

Non-notable rinky-dink award with almost no coverage. It's tangentially attached to the MTV Video Music Awards, but has almost no coverage (all the references in the article are either press releases from the creators of the award, or don't even mention this award). It's so inconsequential, it's not even on VMA's own website--either the list of award winners or the front page. I tried boldy redirecting the article, but another user reverted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:Applegigs has been blocked indefinitely as the result of a sockpuppetry case; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV Video Music Awards or VMA's are pretty famous awards that everyone who follows music knows about which mtv gives out. this is a new vma that mtv is giving out (they add and subtract vmas all the time. it is completely official.

I dont know why the deleter calls it tangentially attached.

Its clearly an mtv vma award.

If you look at the article, or at [33], you will see the official mtv vma logo with the award.

Also the official rules call the award the "MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award."[34] what is tangential about that?

also this official announcement about it calls it a VMA.[35] and the award was to be given out at the vmas.

I really dont see why there is fighting about this. its not like joe's pizza saying a band is the best band on the block. its mtv saying this a vma for best band in nyc, 190 were considered, and they ended up with three VMA nominees just like the other VMAs. its a big deal.--Applegigs (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It didn't air on the actual VMA broadcast, thus it's a non-notable local award which likely only has their presentation aired either using TWC local commercial time on MTV during the VMA ceremony or as part of a local video on demand/public access production. Reading the actual publicity page for the event it seems like the equivalent of an All-Star Celebration venue at the Super Bowl or the NBA or MLB All-Star Games; none of the events at those venues receive anything but publicity attention. Nate • (chatter) 09:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that here the award is called a VMA by MTV.[36][37][38] And here the award was presented at the VMA ceremony by the host. Thats what I saw. And thats what the sources say. And they also say that the winner "was featured on MTV during the live VMAs locally on Time Warner Cable and will be showcased nationally on MTV2"[39] I don't think the stuff you are talking about is a grammy or oscar or tony that is called an oscar or tony or grammy and given by the host at the real event. here it is a vma by mtv even on the logo, and the host gave a moonman at the real event at radio city. and read what gillingham said at [40]. he should know.--Applegigs (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. We have articles for all the Grammy Awards, including ones that never ever make it on-air such as Grammy Award for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album. Google News has zero hits for either this award or the winning artist, however, so it is pretty obscure. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment The difference is that at the very least every Grammy winner is mentioned on-air, even in just the form of quick drive-by text. This local award did not appear within the ceremony that went out nationally over MTV. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a point. I've changed my stance to "neutral", I think this is a real borderline case. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See what i added above.--Applegigs (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's now clear that the article was created by Epeefleche, expanded by VMAsNYC and Applegigs, and defended here by Applegigs, all of whom now turn out to be part of one big sockpuppet operation. This illustrates that the article couldn't survive on its own merits. If this award ever achieves real prominence down the road, an article can be created then. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I initially recused myself from this discussion due to personal attacks from VMAsNYC, but now that "they" have been blocked I'll weigh in. Redirect to 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. I'm not sure that it deserve a merge and I don't think it deserves its own article, but if this turns out to be a recurring award that happens every year I could see a legitimate article being created. To that end I don't think the article should be deleted outright, just permanently redirected until sufficient notability for the award is established. ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the redirect should point to this section: 2009 MTV Video Music Awards#Best Breakout Artist Awards ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desario[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all. Minor coverage, but nothing reliable enough to pass WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC. And the album was never released, so it also fails WP:NALBUMS. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews found from Exclaim! and PopMatters.--Michig (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and the band members used to be in this band and this band.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I also found these: [41], [42], [43] and there was an article in the Sacramento Bee which is no longer on their website, but there's part of it here.--Michig (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Michig _Met^ty 23:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Neil Clark (writer). Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Evil saltine (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technomotive[edit]

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

non-notable neologism. A knol article doth not notability make, and I can find little or no coverage outside of that. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly this is a dictionary definition, and so shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. There is no point transwikiing it to Wiktionary as I cannot find any evidence of the word being used this way in any books or newsgroups (the typical durably archived sources required by Wiktionary). Note that TechnoMotive is/was a manufacturer and/or brand of computer chips for in-car computers as far as I can work out. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A definition of a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism as per above.Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author There is no evidence of the use of this term other than in the Knol article, does this mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia? If so, I guess you can delete it. Suppose I can recreate it in the future, if it is found to be used by others. Merarischroeder (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedic articles about the term and require evidence of notability, including coverage of the topic (not just the word) in multiple independent reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Wiktionary is a dictionary counterpart to Wikipedia, entries there are dictionary definitions of terms (e.g. etymology, pronunciation, part of speech, example usage, etc). Entries there must also be verifiable, but the criteria there is evidence of use of the word (see use-mention distinction) in independent, durably archived sources (typically books, newspapers, magazines, newsgroups, journals, etc, not (potentially) transient websites or internet fora) over a period of at least 1 year, ideally over at least 3 years. As it stands, the page you are the author of is more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopaedia article (compare the Wikipedia article Cat and the Wiktionary entry cat), and so if you were to resubmit it in its present form it would be better added at Wiktionary when you have found the requisite citations. If you want to resubmit it to Wikipedia in future, you will need to rewrite it so it is more encyclopaedic and include the evidence of coverage about the topic that meets the verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, early close per WP:SNOW, no way that there will be a consensus to delete given what we have so far. Note that article has been moved to Murder of Annie Le. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Le[edit]

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

There appears to be no claim of notability here. A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While it's only a guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event would seem to apply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - If this is removed, so should the entry on Suzanne Jovin. Both should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.80.171 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - As I had left on the talk page, it is still available for expansion. It is stub, but as usual, it can be expanded.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A lot of people go missing, yes, but most people who go missing do not get massive (national) news coverage, as she did/does. She meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability because of all the media coverage she has already received over the past week and is continuing to receive. This is one of those big disappearance stories that hits every once in a while. —Lowellian (reply) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1500 Gnews hits and ten times that many Google hits seems to assert notability. ArcAngel (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with User:ArcAngel (as suggested by my vote above), but I want to elaborate/clarify one thing: Not just 10 times (that would be 15,000), more like 100 times -- there are 233,000 hits for the phrase "annie le" as I write this comment; even after attempting to filter against other persons with the same name by searching simultaneously with the keyword "yale", we still get 114,000 hits, and that's just within one week of her disappearance. Also, I'm seeing 3000+ articles on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I searched Google I did so with quotation marks. I bet that's the difference in our results. ArcAngel (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also did so with quotation marks, so that does not explain the difference in our results. Shrug. Google is sometimes strange. —Lowellian (reply) 22:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, looks like it's a time issue, since I did my search later than you did. The numbers just keep growing as the news story itself keeps growing. They're up to over 5,000 now on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I wanted a concise rundown on Le, the first place I came was Wikipedia—articles like this are one of the many facets of Wikipedia that make it so useful. I agree that the wide coverage of the incident makes this person notable enough for an article, at least for the time being. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most talked about story in the news currently KSWarrior8 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially given recent news reports of a body found in her lab building. Murder in a Yale campus building is a big deal, similar to the Suzanne Jovin case. What a horrible tragedy in any case. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing this article from a focus on Annie Le's biography to an event-oriented view. The article I cited above does the same. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news coverage really has been significant--it's at least worth waiting to see what details emerge. And the details are pretty strange as it is. The Yale association also makes it a part of the history of one of the most important universities in the country. --Longwoodprof (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tragic, but non-notable murder victim. Does every murder victim on, say, America's Most Wanted, get their own page on Wikipedia? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It makes Wikipedia look really ridiculous and amateurish that every time someone comes here for an encyclopedic recount of an event receiving extensive national news coverage that somebody has tagged it for deletion (after apparently doing 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds of research to determine whether or not it's an extremely and obviously notable national story). This is an extremely notable event, being a dominant news item across the nation. It will obviously be something that affects Yale University's identity for a generation (if you disagree, let's place a wager). --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines seem to suggest that the article should be titled Death of Annie Le or Murder of Annie Le, referring to the event, rather than the individual. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to say I believe the article should be kept? --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment all you want, but !votes from IP editors are generally ignored in the overall decision. ArcAngel (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "!votes"? And why are my arguments any less valid because I don't have an account? This does not seem sensible and should be revisited. I have read the notability rules and the "Not News" rules and believe I have correctly interpreted them, and that seems unrelated to whether or not I have an account. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this section, it covers AFD discussions. ArcAngel (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't understand. That section says: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Thus I suggested a course of action (keep) and followed it with arguments. The section further says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." But I did not misrepresent my reasons and am not acting in bad faith. I suppose I should return to watching Web 2.0 rather than attempting to participate.This article I read recently, which notes Wikipedia's inscrutable elite, seems apt. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus says that !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Support, Oppose, Neutral, etc.) aren't "counted" when made by IP editors in any type of discussion where "voting" takes place, such as here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ArcAngel (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I'm not aware of any policy that states that. Anonymous users are allowed to comment at AFD; their comments may be discounted, but only if there's reason to believe they're a sockpuppet or single-purpose account. I see no evidence of that here. See the Guide to Deletion. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying on my talk page that IP votes are not counted at RFA, not here. I hereby apologize to the IP if I came across brusk or otherwise incivil, I have restored your !vote. ArcAngel (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole little spat is perfect evidence of why a vast number of possible contributors keep the heck away from editing W'Pedia. TinPot ArcAngel, who struggles to spell 'brusque', trashing entirely sensible and legitimate input from another user, for spurious reasons. Then backing down, taking a huge amount of unconstructive time. Can you regular editors start monitoring your own, please, rather than aggressively singling out competent but less regular contributors? Sigh. (My substantive input below; this, on the process of the debate; do NOT delete, ArcAngel or similar.) Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the most recent news coverage. This is definitely notable now (and for the same reasons as the IP editor above, I think the AfD vote should be resolved ASAP as numerous individuals will be coming to Wikipedia for more information now). --Dlugar (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unquestionably newsworthy. The last homicide at Yale was in 1998. --AStanhope (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep, but rename to "Murder of Annie Le" or "Death of Annie Le". This is quite notable ... as an event ... not as a biography of Miss Le. The deletionists here on Wikipedia will only be satisfied once each and every article on Wikipedia is deleted. And maybe not even then. Unreal. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 14 September 2009)

!vote by block-evading IP sockpuppet of indef'd User:Joseph A. Spadaro struck. Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

umm, ok, but it might as well keep its dot. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As AStanhope says, unquestionably newsworthy. However, newsworthiness has never been the threshold for notability, WP:NOTNEWS. This is a tragic apparent murder. But many such tragic murders occur every day. They do not rise to the level of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Murders on American university campuses are extremely rare; murders on Ivy League campuses even more so. Compare Suzanne Jovin or Sinedu Tadesse. jdb (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JosephBarillari. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as JosephBarillari says, a murder on the campus of a university like Yale is pretty much guaranteed to be notable. In this case, there's definitely been enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Murder of Annie Le, assuming its a homicide, per JA Spadaro. While its true that not every murder is notable, this one IS. the fairness of whose murder is reported widely in the press and whose isnt would make a great book, and then an article here, if sourced extensively (race, class, gender, age of victim, details of crime, country, etc. all probably effect reporting in unfair ways). but fairness aside, this murder is getting massive attention, so it gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is already an article about what kind of murders/kidnapping are widely-reported: see missing white woman syndrome. —Lowellian (reply) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perhaps you failed to notice, but she's Vietnamese, not white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.146.122 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps you failed to notice, but I never said she was. User:Mercurywoodrose was talking about a Wikipedia article that discussed what types of murders/kidnappings are widely-reported, and I gave the link to such an article. —Lowellian (reply) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability"... it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said... ColdCase (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is unquestionably keep at this point. However, because she became notable due to her bizarre murder and because police have ruled it a homicide, a move to Murder of Annie Le seems warranted.--Eightofnine (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move: I concur with Mercurywoodrose, Eightofnine, etc. The event has been widely covered so it should be kept, but also renamed; it is the event, not the victim, that received wide coverage. Move to Murder of Annie Le. -- Noj r (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC covers it and it is not a British related story. That says something. By Wikipedia practice, the article, if kept, should be called "Murder of Annie Le". Suzanne Jovin gives us some guidance. That is a Yale murder. However, that did not go through an AFD so we have no idea where that is an "other crap exists" or not. As for my own opinion, I am not sure. It is definitely not "definitely notable" but has some notability leanings due to the British coverage.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, internationally covered story. No opinion about the renaming. If the article were moved, would Annie Le become a redirect? Loves Macs (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is a notable story and current event, and wikipedia provides an important service by offering readers a convenient way to follow its developments. It is, after all, the first murder at Yale in years and certainly one of the most unusual stories about a student disappearance that I've ever heard. I agree though that it could be renamed. Johnny^California 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a notable story and current event" this is exactly the type of argument that makes the subject appropriate for Wikinews rather than Wikipedis. See WP:NTEMP; "Notability is not temporary." TJRC (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A decent article on the murder of Annie Le will be referenced for years to come. Cf. the Suzanne Jovin case. Are you saying we have to wait a few years before we can decide whether articles are notable or not? Ridiculous. 75.197.110.237 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for re-creation if later on this appears to be notable. Notability is not temporary, however, it just happened so it precisely fits WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Location (talk)
Weak Keep on this one. There are the WP:BIO1E concerns, and it's geared to basically be an obituary, more or less, but I want to see this one develop. Something about instinct on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating these sensational cases. Just stop nominating them. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person was rendered more than notable enough for Wikipedia by virtue of the tragic events that befell her.Killdevil (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Christ's sake. Rename of course, but the article should stay. I can only imagine that the deletists' ultimate goal is an unused and uncited encyclopedia. 75.197.110.237 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This has been discussed nationwide like through NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good heavens, my first AfD !vote in many moons. Noteworthiness is obvious to American readers, though I don't blame non-Americans for bemusement here. Coverage on national news sources has been vast, and has already included analytic content discussing the socio-economic implications of the case, even at this early stage in the course of events. Clearly notable as a murder, renaming is fine. Xoloz (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We've got an interesting phenom here. Google news links to an article, it gets tons of traffic, all of who see an ugly AfD notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though this is no doubt a tragedy, we're discussing a different question. The bar for notability on Wikipedia has gotten too low. The fact that Google News, ABC, NBC, etc. are all yielding a lot of hits now is only an indication of the content of the news cycle, not the victim's or the case's actual long-term wide-scale notability. If those counts are still this high in a few months, I'll happily reconsider my vote. msk (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - A current event such as this takes time to determine actual notability. Whitespider23 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Many people inquiring about this matter are going to be using Wikipedia to learn more about it, so this definitely shouldn't be deleted -- however I do believe renaming is in order because people want to read about the actual death of Annie Le, not a biography of her. This is my first time putting my two cents in for anything, I hope "!voted" properly. Someone please enlighten me if I didn't. THWoodman (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per notability of the crime itself and that the name of the article indicates that.--Judo112 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the story of the murder of Annie Le has been top news on major television programs and in newspapers in the United States for nearly a week now. Just by this very fact alone, I think the article should stay. David Straub (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure - Does the fact that this happened at Yale make it more notable than otherwise? Would it be less notable if it took place at large state university? A small state college? A technical hihgh school? A shopping mall? My gut sense is that this is not Wikipedia worthy. Perhaps there should be a "current events" sub-section of Wikipedia for what are essentially news stories with a short shelf life and little or no encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.97.90 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a note. I already voted for deletion, but I must take umbrage with the comment by editor ColdCase, to wit, Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability" [...] "it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said..." as seriously flawed and illogical. Being dead does not confer notability. I am really surprised at the number of keep votes; I hope sentimentality is not the guiding force behind them, because it is plain that, alive, Annie Le would be deemed as lacking WP:NOTABILITY in a New York second. If the article is kept it should be changed to Death of Annie Le or Murder of Annie Le. And if that means deleting Suzanne Jovin and Sinedu Tadesse for the sake of fairness, so be it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Death does not in itself confer notability, true, but international and intense national media coverage and the unusual circumstances of the death do. —Lowellian (reply) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reluctantly. A tragic death, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and Wikipedia is not news. Notability is not temporary. In a few months, if this is still discussed, then we can and should have this article. Until then, however, there is no way we can properly assess whether this event has lasting significance; any such prediction is WP:CRYSTAL. Tim Song (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, border-line Speedy Keep - Major news story, just so tragic and touching to people. I guess the Cambridge Bay Weather is quite stormy today! --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the "tragic and touching to people" bit—hopefully everyone has not too much of an emotional attachment to this person that it is swaying opinion in favour of "keep" rather than judging it on its notability. --can dle •wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm puzzled by the keep votes. This isn't notable; it might be considered newsworthy now for whatever reasons, but this isn't a newspaper. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would be obtuse of us not to have an article, given the coverage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why is this person different I too ask... she was found dead about two days ago. Nothing in the sources and nothing that has been said here show any form of long-term notability. This is all short-term news coverage. Tim Song's links say it all. --can dle •wicke 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If it's the most notable case on the news in the country, then of course it is worthy of an article, and no doubt someone might research the Annie Le case in the future while looking at infamous murders, like the Murder of Nixzmary Brown. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They might? Is this verifiable though? --can dle •wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

String Delete. It might well be newsworthy, but not notable. I'm sure there's not a page for every murdered person. Nothing makes this one stand out from the rest. WP:NOTNEWS Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Nothing makes this one stand out from the rest"? Really? Not the intense nation-wide media coverage, far above the norm for most murders? Not that it took place at an Ivy League university? Then by your standards, what would it take to make a murder "notable" enough for Wikipedia? —Lowellian (reply) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

String Delete. Per Ronhjones. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. News coverage of the news coverage: NBC Producer Trampled At Annie Le "Briefing". Analysis of the intersection of the Jaycee Dugard and Annie Le cases. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count is (at this point) 30 keep, 10 deletes, and a couple keep/moves. Recommend close, and discuss any remaining issues on the talk. -Ste vertigo 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes a murder becomes an event tightly bound up with the history of an institution. Just like the Suzanne Jovin murder in 1988 was an event that profoundly influenced the university experience of every student and faculty member at Yale at that time (and for several years afterwards), so will Annie Le's murder be a significant event repeatedly referred to by the current generation of Yale students and faculty. Countless members of the Yale community will come to Wikipedia looking for a clear and unbiased source of the facts of the case. I second Stevertigo's recommendation that the AfD be closed. —SaxTeacher (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand apparently an event being reported repeatedly on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, New York Daily News, Newsday, Washington Post ect is not grounds for notability. I mean I can understand if it was mentioned once on the local news but this has been on national TV and newspaper headlines day in and day out. RiseRobotRise (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Keeping with the fact that Suzanne Jovin article meets notability requirements, then given the amount of reliably sourced news article about the missing turned homicide case then this case should meet the requirement required. However, that being said if the policy WP:NOT#NEWS is expanded then this proposal for deletion should be revisited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The location/context, volume of coverage, and sensational nature of the killing all suggest that the event merits space on Wikipedia. A question for those supporting their arguments to delete on the grounds that we cannot know if this will continue to meet notability criteria after some time has elapsed: why should that counsel in favor of deleting the article now, rather than keeping it until such time as it becomes clear that it is no longer notable? In other words, why the strong presumption against long-term notability? SS451 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that every time an event like this occurs (no matter where or which country) it should be kept because it might possibly achieve long-term notability but we don't know that yet so it ought to be kept just in case? --can dle •wicke 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This will fade away very quickly as most stories of this nature do. Also, it bothers me that users keep putting more importance on the case because it happened in a Yale building. Um. So? I don't think we should put special importance on certain universities like that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not delete the article about Natalee Holloway? Nobody talks about her anymore RiseRobotRise (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists. Why not nominate it if you believe this to be the case? --can dle •wicke 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has not only received national coverage, but also extensive international coverage nilicule (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete WP is NOT news. Temporary fame is NOT notability.
Strong Keep. Granted, Wikipedia is not news, but Annie Le's murder will be remembered for being an extraordinary and significant event at Yale. If we deleted all articles based upon the fact that the person's notability would "fade away", I don't understand why the James Kim and Cho Seung-hui articles haven't been deleted. -Imhyunho (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that this discussion isnt closed soon as it is obvious that we will keep it.--Judo112 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Imhyunho WP:Other stuff exists. Perhaps nobody has gotten round to it yet? Why not nominate them if you believe this to be the case? --can dle •wicke 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's precedent, articles with similar circumstances have not been questioned, why should this one be? I'm not going to nominate all other articles for deletion because I think its silly to do so. If a murder case is talking about on the news all day long, and is constantly on the news, and has garnered a great deal of national attention, there should be no reason to delete it. Some people disagree with this and only believe that subjects who do not have the same amount of notability as United States Presidents should be deleted. This is an excellent example of Wikipedian nonsense. If you think that the rules should be changed, candlewicke, why don't you petition to change the notability guidelines to your liking? RiseRobotRise (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument that the encyclopedia should automatically delete those of transitory fame is fallacious. Almost no one "talks about" obscure popes and kings of the tenth century in their daily life; the notability of those people has certainly "faded away" over time Still, we would never think of deleting those people from the encyclopedia because they are significant to historical and social scholarship. While the late Ms. Le was no king, her murder will remain very notorious within the Yale community, which virtually guarantees that it will be the subject of scholarly analysis, above and beyond the bare facts of the case. This is, in fact, already happening in the Connecticut press. Although it may seem unfair to other victims, murders on Ivy League campuses are very rare, and almost always merit encyclopedic coverage because of the scholarly comment that they generate, in addition to any "news" value. To delete Ms. Le's article would be a disservice to scholarship. While there may be categories where "faded" notoriety should be considered in AfD analysis, events that are already the subject of scholarly analysis are encyclopedic, whether the public has stopped "talking about them" or not. Ms. Le's murder is not akin to a reality show finalist; academic minds have taken immediate note of it. Xoloz (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vast coverage, notable event that will remain so long after the newpaper headlines have gone. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Support reaming to Murder of Annie Le.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are doubtless many murders in the US each day, this one stands out as it happened at a well-monitored area at a world-famous university, and to someone young but with so much proven success and potential. Sure, this news will be replaced in our minds with something else in a week or two. But then most news is like that anyway. Annie Le's story should be documented and retained here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcoins (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an outside the box murder. This is not your run of the mill home invasion that happens daily in this country. I agree with the change of title as the Event itself is noteable, not the person. However, this event will be a point of discussion on every college campus for quite some time. Whenever people are discussing student safety this event will be brought up. - Sorry if I did anything incorrect. This is the first time I have joined in on a discussion. --vision40 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be? But how do you know this? And is it verifiable? --can dle •wicke 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count is currently 39 keep to 12 delete, with some talk about moving it. -Ste vertigo 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the new title that focuses on the event not the person, since the event seems to have enough evidence now for notability. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could some admin who hasn't been involved with this discussion please close this AFD? Going from User:Stevertigo's stats, at around 80% keep after over 50 votes, it's clear that the result is a "keep". —Lowellian (reply) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Why all the focus on "count"? Some of the content within the deletes make a lot more sense than some of the content within the keeps... --can dle •wicke 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD guidelines make it very clear that this is a discussion, not a simple vote. AfDs are normally kept open for a week unless there is some pressing need to close sooner. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, many AFDs are often closed early, per such principles as WP:SNOW. —Lowellian (reply) 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a commonplace news event (sadly), but not really an encyclopedic topic. Peacock (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you saying that Natalee Holloway, or all the articles in Category:Murder victims, are not encyclopedic topics either? —Lowellian (reply) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give time for the story to develop. The sensationalism of the case is exactly what makes it notable. Wikipedia is not a news source, BUT news consumers come here for reliable, neutral background on issues, be they current events or ancient history. That function is within the scope of the encyclopedia. --Whoosit (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case has affected me, personally, more than most murder cases. Firstly, the victim was unusually sympathetic in her background, achievements, and approaching wedding. Secondly, this case will likely become ironclad because of the extensive use of technology: video cameras, swipe cards, and DNA evidence, more so than with other cases. Thirdly, I am struck by the methodical professionalism of the police in handling this case. Fourthly, this case may lead to new ideas in campus safety, namely, the closer scrutiny of campus staff. I do think this case will be a hallmark case in campus safety, and perhaps in minority women's issues. Hanuman (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has affected you personally though as you say... there is nothing wrong with being affected by an event of course but are your emotions and judgement becoming interlinked? Again, perhaps I am misreading that and apologies if I am. But you also use a "might" and "may" argument with nothing definite guaranteed... I have nothing at all against Annie Le and stumbled across this by accident but how after three days can long-term notability be proven in a murder case like this that moves it beyond WP:MEMORIAL (and there are suggestions of personal and emotional attachments) and WP:NOTNEWS? I am not seeing any evidence of this in the keep arguments and this disappoints me after all this time. --can dle •wicke 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This case is not about campus safety. Only one victim was killed. It's about workplace violence. In the future, I would hope that new ideas would prevent workplace violence. [44] If it was about campus safety, the school would have told the students to not go out. [45]Esthertaffet (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys give the people a break. This should be kept because it hit a chord of sympathy for the young, students, females, people trying to get ahead and make this world a better place, etc. Life is not all cut and dried science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.9.11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 September 2009

Weak Keep - But why not try this - improve guidelines for notability of 'current affairs' items. If journalism is the first draft of history, Wikipedia articles of this sort should be the second. There's absolutely nothing wrong with allowing an article to stay in place, if properly categorised, edited, referenced, to see if it really is notable, with the hindsight of some, well, history. Don't forget W'Pedia, unlike printed encyclopaedias is not bound by space limitations. So try thinking on your feet editors, looking to reforming the 'pedia's practices/policies themselves as well as developing articles, and stop wasting everyone's time with your absurd delete-twitch. Please?Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Up for deletion, come and join the argument" on an article like this just makes Wikipedia look terrible. We're supposed to be here to create an encyclopedia-- a compendium of information for our readers-- not an argument forum. Santayana said it well-- Those who forget their goal and redouble their efforts. Dekkappai (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's been all over the news for several days now; I'd say it easily passes the threshold for multiple sources. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Infinite notability is not prerequisite to a topic being of encyclopedic value. The Jovin case faded from the mainstream many years ago but still maintains an entry on Wikipedia. It would be logically inconsistent to delete the Annie Le entry. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per national, extended coverage and proper page move. I was not sure about this topic at first, but the continued coverage indicates a more than passing news soundbite. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note that most of the external links in the article are the subject's own publications. Evil saltine (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Bruce III[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Leuko (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to support the notability of this person, so I agree with failing WP:BIO. ArcAngel (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outstandingly non-notable. A booking agent? C'mon. Hairhorn (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's give the guy a break, a publicist to Ted DiBiase, and Shawn Harper as well as bring involved in film. I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GihigugmakoikawJesus (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) — GihigugmakoikawJesus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:GIVEBREAK is not a Wikipedia policy. :-) Leuko (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources and notability. Studerby (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Anglican Primates[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all the people on the list are notable, but notability is a guide to article topics, not content. The Anglican communion is a major religion and a list of the highest-ranking persons in each country is notable. PaulGS (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per PaulGS. A list of heads of a major religion in each country is notable. This list could be expanded to talk about each head a little bit. _Met^ty 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This is a major Christian communion. Each province (which is not necessarily a country) is autonomous. The presiding archbishop is the ecclesiastical head of that church on earth, and is certainly notable. The fact that there are a number of redlinks merely indicates that articles on them are still needed. HOWEVER, I suspect that the list is longer than it should be, having had added to it the senior bishop in certain countries that are only part of a provicne. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- a weak article for deletion. Clearly relevant and of interest. Rosser Gruffydd 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge into Anglican Communion#Provinces of the Anglican Communion as a table. The information is notable but it would be more efficient to include it in the main article about the Anglican Communion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of primates of the Orthodox Church in America[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all the people on the list are notable, but notability is a guide to article topics, not content. The list is no different than the list of Catholic bishops, as both relate to the highest-ranking figures in a major religion. PaulGS (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Needs to be cited, but if it can be cited, I don't have an issue with the article. Though I have to admit I thought we were talking about monkies... Admrboltz (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per PaulGS. A list of heads of a major religion is notable. This list could do with more sources and notes. _Met^ty 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PaulGS (note: I created the list.) I have added a source to at least get things started.--cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above except the nominator. Meets WP:LIST as a list of notable bishops in a notable church. The general consensus has been that primates (i.e. archbishops, presiding bishops, or cardinals) of larger, well-known Christian denominations are per se notable, so the list of those should be kept for ease of navigation. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Russian orthodox church may not be the most prominnet in America, but this is no differnet from a list of bishops (with a continuous succession) in any other church with dioceses. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the points raised above. Really bad, probably offensive joke about monkeys running churches regretfully withdrawn. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep Overwhelming majority (unanimous!) in favour of keep. Cheers, I'^mperator 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in The Beatles: Rock Band[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). In this particular case, we're talking one of the most significant bands of all time, so what music is included is of academic nature. Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the information is well-referenced and provides a useful source of information. It is also written in a neutral tone. Kendric_Apple (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Mike R (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In agreement with arguments above. Robsinden (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the GH and RB games have the songs spun out when they get too big, and this is not just a list, thought there is a mass of overlink in the tables, after all six links to the cavern all go to the same place. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MASEM Admrboltz (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, but a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not really a gameguide, and is very similar to other lists that are currently maintained on Wikipedia, and as pointed out by above editors falls into a category for such lists. --Taelus (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Rock Band 2[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. Oren0 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, it's just like a track listing for an album, which I often look up on Wikipedia. I find this article very useful, and I disagree with the above, in that I'm not sure this information would be as accessible on a game-guide site. I think of a game guide as offering more strategy, etc. This is a listing of useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.117.164 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The page is far more useful than any other collection of the same information found elsewhere, because here it can be easily sorted, and is always up to date. - Keithustus (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per other similar lists. Robsinden (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (3 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the source of the track listing, for instance? A list stitched together from press releases, and which is not complete. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Referencing can certainly be improved for this article, but that in itself s not a reason for deletion as long as the necessary sources are available. And using multiple sources for different facts (including different elements of a list) does not violate WP:SYNTH. Each of these songs can be sourced to a reference without synthesizing information from multiple references. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a directory, this is a culturally significant collocation of notable tracks. MarkSteward (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per arguments made in a similiar AfD here. I feel this series of AfD's could've been much better handled than creating what is apparently 6-7 unique ones. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep per A nobody's comments --Teancum (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Please avoid nominating articles for deletion until you learn how to use a valid argument or don't use it at all. Vodello (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Rock Band[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. Oren0 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. Citybug (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. As much as I hate copy and paste arguments, as the nomination is a copy and paste... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (8 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments here. This is no different than a video-game soundtrack. The fact that there are multiple articles is only due to the unique nature of the content comparred to games of it's type. The AfD should be considered against the entire Rock Band series of articles as opposed to unique elements. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is acting as an encyclopedic reference with regard to the Rock Band video game. It's encyclopedic value is not diminished merely because the entry is about a video game. This game has had become a part of our culture and could easily be the subject of any number of studies, from psychology to sociology, and this Wikipedia entry is a useful reference with regard to its content. --[[User:Apollo2Kappa] 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week. Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people tend to find a list of songs for games like these to gather information on the game. These pages provide an organized layout for the very numerous songs released for this game. And it most certainly meets Notability.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oren0. Maxa megalon 2000 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the best source of information and most comprehensive list i can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.238.125 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, bt a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these songs can and should be listed in the similar articles for each Rock Band Game. TJ Spyke 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These songs work across multiple games, so there's no one single game to put them under. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? When a song is included on multiple albums (like compilation albums), we list it on each of those pages. TJ Spyke 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - When there's 10-40 tracks per album, sure. This list is close to 800 songs and counting. Duplicating (triplicating and so on if Lego Rock Band and future Rock Band titles follow the same route) that much information is completely unnecessary and inefficient, and makes WP:SIZE whimper at the end result of such inclusion. This is the most compact form that makes this information usable to the general reader for academic purposes. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my statements here. I would encourage any further discussion to continue in the "main" AfD for the all encompassing table. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those essays justify a speedy keep; I invite you to amend your !vote. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (20 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These contents can be sourced through reliable, sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the reasons listed for deletion are valid. "Listcruft" is never a valid reason for deletion, and the list is not simply a "directory" such as a phone book, etc. Notability by itself is also never a reason for deletion, but even if it were the notability of the overall topic (ie the complete discography of Rock Band) is what would be relevant to a notability discussion, since this is a subarticle of that. All the items in the article are well sourced and the article appears to be frequently, regularly maintained. Finally note that the article is well trafficked and used by a large sector of readers as a valuable reference. Therefore Keep. Dugwiki (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely encyclopedic material that is large enough to merit splitting off from the parent article, not to mention well-presented and verified. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week. Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people tend to find a list of songs for games like these to gather information on the game. These pages provide an organized layout for the very numerous songs released for this game. And it most certainly meets Notability.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, bt a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these songs can and should be listed in the similar articles for each Rock Band Game. TJ Spyke 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this comment was adequately addressed in this similar AfD, but in any case, your comment seems to suggest a merge, not delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my statements here. I would encourage any further discussion to continue in the "main" AfD for the all encompassing table. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data has not been established. The sources cited in the article (10 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this article makes for easier navigating then using the usual Rock Band site, and allows us to see all songs in order instead of the full song list that is randomly placed. Nascarfan1964 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the other related AFD discussions. Dugwiki (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not seeing a difference between this and the previously established list of rock band downloadable songs, except that this is seperated by year. I'm assuming I'm missing something, because I don't see the point of having a seperate article when all the same information thats on those three pages is already organised on one other page that can already be sorted by date. DurinsBane87 (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the size of the full list (at Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series), we opted to split it into by-year segments, with the full list using transclusion to avoid duplication of content. All transcluded lists and the full lists were put up for AFD by ArcAngel. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely encyclopedic material that is large enough to merit splitting off from the parent article, not to mention well-presented and verified. Chubbles (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 21:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people tend to find a list of songs for games like these to gather information on the game. These pages provide an organized layout for the very numerous songs released for this game. And it most certainly meets Notability.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a sensible way to handle this type of content. Song selection is pretty fundamental to the games so song lists would seem to be analogous to character lists in other genres. Guest9999 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, bt a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my statements here. I would encourage any further discussion to continue in the "main" AfD for the all encompassing table. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (3 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments in the related AFD discussions. Dugwiki (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely encyclopedic material that is large enough to merit splitting off from the parent article, not to mention well-presented and verified. Chubbles (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rock Band track packs[edit]

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

Per WP:DIRECTORY, this article doesn't fit into the scope of Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reception information exists for all of these; absolutely not a directory. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. Moreso, each of these are individual products, and thus can be considered individual games under the series - just not enough info to warrant a separate page for each. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is not a WP:DIRECTORY and thus there is no valid reason given to delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. A list of games released on multi-platforms and each of which has separate reviews and production history is hardly a mere directory. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (16 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found the article useful. If it passes the useful test I think it should be kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanali (talk • contribs) 12:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my arguements here. At this point, consider my argument applicable to ANY RB related article that has been tagged for deletion under series of AfD's. It's tiring copy/pasting comments and it's causing me to lose track of which arguments have been made where. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was useful to me, as I wanted to know if a particular song was out for rockband and I just searched for it and foudn this page. Sources are good and accurate.Divedeeper 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - This was an exceptionally useful article to me, and that is the entire point of an encyclopaedia. Let's not get caught up in technicalities - it is useful, it is factual. --Dancraggs 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

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

This list fulfills the criteria of WP:DIRECTORY and indeed is something that can be found elsewhere. ArcAngel (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note that the same person has nominated the three other lists that are used in transclusion for the content of this one. These are:
- --MASEM (t) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is not a WP:DIRECTORY and thus there is no valid reason given to delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the "soundtrack list" idea, and I would like to note that it contributes useful information because of the way all the song/artist articles are linked (other versions of this list found elsewhere do not contribute this sort of cross-referencing) --Evilspoons (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oren0...and per the cardinal Wikisin of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not a valid keep reason...but...I go back to this article frequently, mainly because it is very well maintained and well referenced. --Smashville^talk 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other arguments. this website has alone has kept me coming back and has over the last couple of years its been out has solidified wikipedia for me as a primary place to find incormation. Because of this I use Wikipedia much much more often then I would otherwise. I think that speaks for many, many other people who are such big fans of the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.244.36 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument made by users Oren and Masem. This is no different than a video game or film soundtrack, with the only "differences" stemming from the documented fact that the content isn't tied to any one specific game, but rather 3. With respect to WP:SIZE, the editors have worked out the best solution possible to present this content in an encyclepdic fashion while also ensuring that it's application to multiple titles is well documented. Let it also be noted that my statements in favor of keeping this article apply to all four AfDs that have been created for these articles. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again, per WP:SNOW, and also as subject is covered in reliable sources: “Rock Band’s Five Most Unexpectedly Rockin’ Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band’s Five Most Disappointingly Boring Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58 among MANY others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (23 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Compiling multiple sources with data into a larger data set without modification of that data is not synthesis, or least, its not the type of synthesis that is considered original research. As for notability, these are supporting articles from the main game pages (the song lists are too large to include there) but even then, there are additional sources that comment on the release of these songs each week. These *could* be added, but then this reduces the usability of these articles. And there's general sources that apply to the overall body of song content that are already included in the main articles. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its a cummulative synthesis of the articles you listed in your earlier post of September 14th (see above). In fact, this article duplicates them. Perhaps a merger might be appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason there exists this article and the 3 other ones is that about 2 months ago, we decided to split the single large article into by-year lists due to size concerns on a 700+ entry table, thus allowing the by-year lists to be more manageable for those that may not have expected the larger size. However, at the same time, the full list is sortable, and thus this one is retained to allow full list sorting (and it so noted to be "full" or "complete" when linked to elsewhere). Transclusion is used to avoid duplication of the backend wikicode used to generate the table; this full list transcludes the necessary sections of the by-year lists. Such breakouts are completely appropriate for large lists and to meet size constraints (there are several that break out by alpha, some by year). This is not synthesis in any way. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact information can be found elsewhere is never a reason to delete Wikipedia articles. To the contrary, Wikipedia requires that information be gathered from reliable sources, so if the information weren't available elsewhere then it would have to be deleted as being unsourced. As to the complaint of it being a "directory", the complaint is invalid as the list is not simply a directory of names but is more akin to a discography or soundtrack listing for a work or artist. The only reason it is maintained as a separate article is because of the size of the list in question. Finally note that all the information is well sourced and reliably maintained on a regular schedule by editors and is an integral part of the main topic in question (ie Rock Band), which contradicts any complaints about maintainability or notability of the topic. Dugwiki (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does not fulfill the directory criteria. The directory policy explicitly states, "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." That exactly describes the article in question. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else's argument, but also: these lists are useful. Or does that even matter anymore? I've been out of the Wikiloop for a while. 71.166.47.127 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)f[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evil saltine (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Educational Institute[edit]

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

Searching finds just a passing mention, but not significant coverage, in the LA Times, and that's about it. Thus, it fails the notability requirements. Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third party sources. Notability is questionable Look like an advertisement, especially with this sentence: "EEI has successfully helped many students achieve 2400s or very high scores on the SAT."Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party sources to establish notability and the articles reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleber Sonda[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH, which requires subjects to have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport." He did not make his professional debut at Belgian First Division nor cup level. Karma-AH (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreate when he meets the requirements Spiderone 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as not yet played. No significant coverage outside gen footballer movement and stat (or in this case non-stat) stuff. recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 09:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashida Kim[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stunt People[edit]

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

Non-notable group. No independent way to verify those involved. Sole claim to notability seems to hinge on a 2004 movie. Few relevant Google hits (tough to tell with such a generic name). Group's claimed founder has apparently started a self-promotion campaign for the group on WP. (His autobiographical article is up for speedy deletion, as is another article he created about a movie of his.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top 10 hits on google are all their own website, this wikipedia article, various blogs, and the like. I don't see any independent reviews in reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this AfD is about this article, not this article's author, or the other articles written by this articles author. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources to establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Export. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Export strategy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Duplicates Export, the list of advantages/disadvantages could be easily added to Export and there is nothing in the lead to establish any added value in the Export strategy topic not covered by Export. Previous AFD resulted in "Userfy" for similar reasons. Ash (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant material to Export. As a bonus, that might take care of the {{worldwide}} tag in the latter article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was copy-edited somewhat and nominated for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on a common-sensical basis. The subject matter is wholly subsumed by Export, which is not so long as to require a more specific content-fork. Ray^Talk 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Same topic. —Lowellian (reply) 06:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gridrunner Revolution[edit]

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

Sourcing is to web forums and self-published sources. No independent demonstration of notability. Durova³¹⁸ 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The majority of Llamasoft's/Minter's previous titles already exist on Wikipedia [46] Disciple
Keep As a forthcoming game by a notable developer, this article should be kept. First previews of the game are starting to appear (such as the gamesmaker preview), notability will increase in time, as evidenced by numerous articles in mainstream gaming press about gridrunner+++, the development name of this game.PullTheWires (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with option to recreate when and if notability grows.Whitespider23 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that additional sourcing has been added. Whitespider23 (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a forthcoming game by a notable developer. For what other reason does the 'Upcoming video games' category exist?
Independent sources have now been provided on the page. Harlequin (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forthcoming game by a notable developer, as a result the article should be kept and has now been edited to respond to the criticisms made.--Gaunt (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minter is an extremely well known games designer and any substantial upcoming title from him seems a natural fit for the 'Upcoming video games' category. Moreover the article itself seems both thorough and well researched, release of the title is imminent and there is considerable media interest in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.8.158 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Pull above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company and creator, here are a few sources that took all of two seconds to search for. Eurogamer - GiantBomb citing coverage in Edge Magazine. An AFD could've easily been avoided, but instead we all have to do the dirty work instead of one person doing a simple google search. Vodello (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Evil saltine (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Guy McMartin[edit]

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

Non notable person - references are about a crime and being a crime victim, so it does not pass WP:N/CA. The subject was a sheriff, but I don't see any different rules in WP:N/CA about law enforcement. Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Neutral - I added a nobility statement that I was able to reference and cite. Please see the article itself. But is this enough, just not sure. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N/CA#Victims. Very closely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Patten. I'm OK with the mention at Ventura County Sheriff's Department and would not object to a redirect.Location (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Whitespider23 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - keep. Evil saltine (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreqTweak[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for rescue... perhaps Joe the nominator could help especially after joining the WP:ARS ;-) I am running out of time for today. --Mokhov (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am good at searching for sources and I had no luck hence the nomination. Free software usually doesn't get significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seem to have found some; I'll put them into the article within a few minutes. Note, I am not claiming they are sufficient yet, but at least some for starters... I'll update this entry when I am done. --Mokhov (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added 4 references I've found as suggested by Google and overall copy-edited the article. A book, conference proceedings, a Master's thesis and a technical report from various places mention it. I think it is quite significant academic coverage available for the said free software. Please have a look. If it's still not enough to show significance, well, I did my part :-), I'll let the others do theirs. --Mokhov (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep is therefore my vote. --Mokhov (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's real software and the article is structurally fine. Why delete it? --AStanhope (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When Joe Chill nominated it, it was not "structurally fine" and had no references, infobox, etc. Joe's main concern was lack of references showing significant coverage asserting notability of the software, which I tried to find and cite. While the software is real and perhaps notable to you and me (BTW, as you may have guessed I am for keeping the article), the burden of proof of the notability is on the editors. I did my part in trying rescuing the article by editing it and adding the refs., so perhaps you could too? ;-) --Mokhov (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon, people, the requirement for notability is well known. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I'm less than amused by downloading megabytes of PDF file only to discover the program mentioned once in a "we ran it" sort of off-handed way (that's the first English reference), or included in a long list at the very back of the conference proceedings (the second). The German reference is a single footnote which contains a bare URL, and the Chinese reference is an unpublished master's thesis. None of these constitute significant coverage. Suffice to say, this is abandonware from 5 years ago, which never even reached 1.0. Let's send this article to the Great Intertubes up in the Sky where it belongs. Ray^Talk 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to achieve in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources even after someone made a huge effort to find sources. I'm not going to listen to the audio. Drawn Some (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns raised in the original AFD have been addressed, and multiple sources have been found. It's something intended for a relatively technical audience, and most mentions of it are going to be in technical papers. I might add that it's a little unique in being an open-source signal processing utility, as opposed to yet another editor or IM client. But I wouldn't characterize it as abandonware; if people are happy with it why would the developers continue to release new versions? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Tamil Medical Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage [47]. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be a non-notable local organization.--RDBury (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The existence of a website is not a proof of notability Rirunmot (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability on this organization myself. ArcAngel (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no acceptable 3rd party sources to verify notability. Netalarmtalk 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and lacking RS Whitespider23 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barvo[edit]

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

From the same editor who brought us Kristin Owings, another non-notable, zero references article that brings up near zilch on Google. Joshdboz (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - He is not a pro athlete. I don't see any notable claims either, so the fact that there are no independent sources is moot. Clubmarx (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Guy seems notable but lacks verifable claims. TOEZ (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The above user appears to have been blocked 10 minutes after making this comment. Joshdboz (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has facebook and myspace pages as sources. Plus, he doesn't appear to be a professional athlete. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of available reliable sources, and per the second half of User:TOEZ's comment. If the article's claims about the subject are not verifiable, that is a good reason to delete the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mungo's Church, Balerno[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Mungo's Church, Balerno

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

Run-of-the-mill church that appears to fail the notability guidelines. The only at-all-substantive independent source I'm able to find is this, which appears to be part of an exhaustive treatment of every Episcopal church in Scotland, which can't all be notable. Deor (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (in the sense of receiving coverage on more than a local basis), with an article dating from the days that Wikipedia was taking all comers. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Mandsford (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although info is sparse, the building is categorized as a heritage site perhaps as the design is an early work of Scotland's premier architect. Category B listing would seem to meet notability threshold as it is defined as: "buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered" Canuckle (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when I was researching the nomination; but since there are ~25,000 category B listed buildings in Scotland, I didn't (and don't) think that the listing by itself establishes notability. Deor (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Netalarmtalk 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Beast MMA Training Center[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts center with no refs and few hits Google. Joshdboz (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Beast is one of the top MMA gyms in Idaho and Ontario, Oregon. It is on every major martial arts website right now. It's instructors are highly ranked and it's fighters are also. This article has the same right to be on here as any other MMA gym does, and I will add more references to the page tonight. Zifish 15:33, 7 September 2009

Delete. A single martial arts academy. Certainly not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Unless someone can provide references to show independent, reliable coverage, delete. Clubmarx (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would love to add the prominent BJJ gym that I train at onto Wikipedia, but I'd have to agree that an encyclopedia is not the right context for it. Every gym has an easily searchable web-page for people and doesn't really need a Wikipedia entry anyway. If/once notability is established, a Team Beast MMA Training Center page would have my full support! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's non-notable and similar to the Matthew Barvo article which is also non-notable. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasons. Google shows NN. Netalarmtalk 05:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent refs. Non-notable.Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Konovalov[edit]

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

This is a well-written article, no doubt, but it is covering a person who is the epitome of WP:BLP1E. The fellow got his 5 minutes in the Russian media for the fact that he submitted a film to Cannes, which doesn't seem to have actually been broadcast at the festival, and I can find no coverage of him after that event. Otumba (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even figure out what is true about the subject. The article says that the subject (a) is homeless and (b) owns a house. In fact, one of the main sources used for the article says that too. Maybe there is some way to reconcile these statements, but this seeming contradiction needs to be resolved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Whitespider23 (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Evil saltine (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Eyre[edit]

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

Non-notable British politician. Has never held elected office (above the local council level), and as he isn't standing as a candidate in the next election, is unlikely to in the near future. A search for sources only finds trivial coverage relating to his various failed elections, and no references that would justify keeping this article under WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur pretty much entirely with the above. There's coverage of him, yes, but it's coverage of him as a candidate in an election that he lost, rather than coverage of any other part of his career. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - non-notable person. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think that repeated failed candidates in general elections are minor notable persons. But, for me, a candidate from a major party in a by-election is always notable. If he is notable enough to be listed in our constituency and by-election articles, this page is notable enough to stay, as it points the reader to other elections where he also stood. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Hroðulf, and also find the bio subject's sojourn in Ireland to be of interest. JamesMLane t c 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think a failed candidacy in Ireland makes him notable? NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dr.ef.tymac (talk)

Why? "Keep" contributes nothing to the discussion for consensus. NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election, 2004. If we do count candidates for by-elections as more notable than the usual Parliamentary candidates (and I'm still not sure I'd count as candidate who never stood a chance in that constituency), it's still a WP:BLP1E. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Neville-Smith. This one fails WP:POLITICIAN pretty cleanly. Coming in 4th in an election doesn't qualify somebody for autonotability. Ray^Talk 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The candidate clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. He stood for election and failed to win and there is no coverage in reliable sources or other notable events which would qualify him for an article here. Valenciano (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Chris Neville. Hasn't received the significant coverage needed to have a bio page. Fences&Windows 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed candidate bios do not necessarily belong in election articles if the candidacy itself is not notable. Without sources to demonstrate he has done something notable, an unsuccessful repeat candidate and councilman is not notable enough for inclusion. If no consensus is reached for deletion, then some be BOLD and redirect. NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rabbit (album). Cirt (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staring Down[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. SummerPhD (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rabbit (album) per WP:NSONGS. talking birds 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Create as redirect afterwords, as I noticed this AFD was only started after one of the article's authors reverted an attempt to redirect earlier. Ray^Talk 11:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Jefferson (Ohio)[edit]

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

Small hill in Shelby County, Ohio masquerading as a mountain. I don't see sufficient significant coverage to pass the general notability guidelines, unless by WP:OUTCOMES. While this may be listed as "Mount" by the GNIS, and while I have high respect for WP:OUTCOMES, this is nowhere near being a major geographic feature such as those mentioned in that page's "Geography and astronomy" section. For proof, consult USGS topographic maps here (also accessible if you go to its GNIS feature record, select "GNIS in Google Map", select the Topo view, and zoom in closely) — this "mountain" is along a roadside, and at only 968 feet of elevation, it's only eighteen feet above the streambed just to the north. Google's Satellite view will show that it's clearly not at all prominent — hardly a "major geographic feature". Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a town once. Abductive (reasoning) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been a village. [48][49]--Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unincorporated community appears to be there, but this an article about what the GNIS lists as a "summit", not a "populated place". Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the article's creator to drop by and explain this. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page after consulting the GNIS for all summits called "Mount Jefferson". Obviously, the page content is taken from the GNIS record. GNIS gives a feature class of "summit" which according to the GNIS is defined as:"Prominent elevation rising above the surrounding level of the Earth's surface". The key point here that is being contested is "prominent". There are many varying definitions of topographic prominence around the world but I think all would agree that given the topo map, it is not really prominent. Without details on how its name was chosen, it's hard to say what the rationale was for calling it a mountain. It could also have been named even before the surrounding populated places came into being and may have been at one point in the past, "more prominent". If this "summit" was being named today, something like "Jefferson Ridge" may be more appropriate. Nevertheless, this is an officially named feature in the GNIS and it is officially classed as "summit". Perhaps the wording in the article should be changed to not say "mountain" but more something like "high point". Without having a picture or a local source providing an opposing or supporting view to the GNIS, I must rely on the GNIS definition although the topo map does challenge the "prominent" aspect in this case. RedWolf (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't this be decided on the basis of it having secondary sources as a prominence or not? It would otherwise be kept as a (formerly?) populated place. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, RedWolf, if I came across as accusing you of misuse of your sources; I simply meant to say that, given the somewhat local knowledge given by the map, I didn't think it was a mountain. Although going by experience alone would be OR, I must say — I've flown over Shelby County at a low altitude multiple times, and it's almost all flat. Here's some local evidence: look at File:Sidney Municipal Airport in Ohio.jpg, a photo of part of Shelby County — it's farther east than Mount Jefferson; however, as it looks directly westward, if MJ were really a significant feature, you should be able to see it. Finally: I'm curious, Abductive, why you say "formerly"; Google satellite view shows population there. There is a GNIS entry for a community of U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Mount Jefferson, as well. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I looked in Google News, all the references were very old, so I assumed it is gone now. I had to read the Wikipedia article on GNIS to find out what it is; it says right in the lead that they never remove an entry. So GNIS wouldn't tell me if the town was a ghost town or not, and I lost interest in researching further. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten to be about the community. The summit entry is clearly an error in the GNIS, since there is no summit there. --NE2 07:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A error in a government database? Who'd a thunk it? Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten version as it's a community.--Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per comment by User:RayAYang. Evil saltine (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Malachi[edit]

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

too few sources, not noteworthy Wikimonster007 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- hagiographic and unsourced. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has written several books and gets a few news/book references here and there. Joshdboz (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could just be paranoid, but, isn't it a bit odd for a new user to jump right into AfD? Literally, his only contributions are AfD noms. Hmm...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems somewhat advertising, but is sourced. Netalarmtalk 05:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, but Gscholar, Gbooks, and Gnews searches confirm that he is notable, in the sense of being an authority on Gnostic Christianity. Ray^Talk 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable to me.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Stars International[edit]

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

Mid-price compilation non notable. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Ray^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see WP:MUSIC; almost all albums are notable enough for articles, and I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why this one isn't. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not argue that this album fails WP:MUSIC which states that in general, an album by a notable artist "may" have sufficient notability for an article. What seems to happen more often in practice (and what I think the guideline should reflect) is that a non-charting compilation of previously-released material is generally not notable. A very popular artist may have been the subject of dozens of budget- and mid-priced generic compilations, and in my view most of these are not worthy of separate articles. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Skomorokh 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mee[edit]

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

This player has yet to play competitive 1st team games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergunner08 (talk • contribs)

Keep - the article itself disagrees with your claim, saying "in May 2008 he made his first team debut in a friendly in Bangkok", something backed up by this. The fact that it was a friendly rather than a league game is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played in a competitive first-team game for his club. Spiderone 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in friendlies has never been considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE, as by their nature they are non-competitive and teams field all sorts of youths, triallists and non-contract players. Harry Redknapp once dragged a fan who'd been abusing him out of the stands at a friendly, kitted him up, and sent him out onto the pitch telling him to see if he could do any better! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seriously? I thought that was something made up by the writers of Dream Team in, I think, 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't played a competitive first-team game. Can be recreated if or when he does so. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football, failing WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appearing in a friendly does not confer notability. If he appears for Manchester City - unlikely, given who they've alredy got - then it can be recreated. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice to a recreation if and when he can pass WP:ATHLETE. Note to above keep !vote, per WP:ATHLETE, the fact that it was a friendly versus a pro game actually is, indeed, completely relevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's see some coverage as a professional athlete. NTK (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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