Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 21

< 20 January	22 January >

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) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Del Rio[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Taken to AFD as an earlier PROD was removed. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not indicated. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [[1]] shows no notability, other than an appearance in a marginally notable film with john holmes. not that imdb is necessarily evidence for notability, but it surely is evidence against it in this case.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Cnilep (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - there is, at worst, no consensus to delete. The article is properly referenced and notability has been argued for. Other malls of comparable relevance have articles too. Non-admin closure per my discretion. Chutznik (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange Mall[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources found, seems to fail general notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Fail to establish notability outside the local area. Turgan ^Talk 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The anchors of this mall are Belk, JCPenney, and Sock Shoppe." LOL. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I'll clarify - delete. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hull Storey Gibson Companies, the owners of this mall and some others. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't work. Hull Storey Gibson doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here's my rationale on this one--While a small mall (233,000 sq. feet), it is clearly the only mall in its rural region (per the cites I just added), thus it is regionally notable, unlike a mall its size would be in a larger metropolitan area. Its the only notable retail establishment in the six county region it serves, without a doubt. And I know Bearian is dying to check out that Sock Shoppe (apparently a long-time downtown retailer that was recently lured to the mall.) However, if it is wikipedia's consensus to crush the knowledge of this region's only retail establishment where patrons are probably required to wear shirts and shoes, I would request that the content be userified to me for creation of a larger article on Hull Storey Gibson Companies (owner of six malls currently it seems, down from 17 a few years ago), for which I do see a lot more sources.--Milowent (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the mall's old name helped. There does seem to be a tiny bit more coverage under the old name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent. JBsupreme (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spitzer (Card Game[edit]

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

Locally popular card game. No claim to serious notability. ninety:one 23:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE. A good-faith attempt to find sources using "spitzer card game" would have turned up this as the top link and saved you the hassle of creating an AfD. Tagged for copyvio speedy. Holly25 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Anomaly[edit]

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

Unnotable documentary. Fails WP:N. Prod removed by administrator User:Arbitrarily0 with note of "(contested prod; please pursue deletion through WP:AFD" though no actual reason for contesting was given and seems to have been done as part of a large group of such deproddings with the same copy/paste reason. These two "behind the scenes" documentaries of Primeval has not received significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Broadcast.co.uk announced one episode's airing during a weekend marathon of the series, [2] and Mirror.co.uk throws out the name in an interview with Andrew Lee Potts as he talks about co-star/girlfriend Hannah Spearritt's ass[3]. All other hits in reliable sources are just to not they were included in the DVD release. Many series make these kind of "making off" featurettes to air at a season or series end. Like those, this one is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Primeval episodes. However, the Broadcastnow link above suggests that the February airdate in this article is incorrect. Sarilox (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This documentary fails to meet WP:NF. I suspect the merger suggested above would give undue weight to the subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources appear to meet the minimum standard required for BLPs, and consensus appears to be that her porn career suffices for notability. Sandstein 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Kemp[edit]

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

One step removed from the biography of a living person with absolutely no references is the BLP with references which do no more than reference kayfabe backstory and cruft from IMDB. Apparently this article meets some poorly thought-out guideline, but it doesn't meet policies like WP:BLP and WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO. By the way, PORNBIO is part of WP:BLP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. I don't find one mention of WP:PORNBIO in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia:Verifiability is there though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant WP:BIO. Either way, the article passes a guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unquestionably passes WP:PORNBIO with sources listed, clearly established under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors. Turgan ^Talk 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only that were a policy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not, so we are. All the article needs is referencing in line with BLP/V and I'll happily close the nomination. This shouldn't be hard if the subject is notable because independent, reliable sources are what notability boils down to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO, was a Playboy Playmate, for which I believe every single one ever has a page and trying to pick and choose will waste everyone's time. Reminds me of nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series), where nominator neglected to notice that article was one of 100s in a series. I deprodded this one when I saw nominator had prodded a raft of playmate articles in rapid successions without any examination evident.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Easily passes WP:PORNBIO. I suggest that the nominator read WP:POINT since they've AFD'd this article, deleted seven other Playmate articles, and prod'd at least a dozen more. Perhaps he should have looked into the applicable notability guidelines before going on his slash and burn quest. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator DELETED articles without prodding them? IF so, sounds like an editor needs deletion.--Milowent (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted articles were:

He claimed they were attack pages. I'd love to know what could possibly be taken as an attack on this example for instance. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ridiculousness. I hate when I see people say this, but this really is the sort of thing (unilateral deletion, in this case) that drives away new editors.--Milowent (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a sudden outbreak of admins deleting unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs without discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Epbr123 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it meets PORNBIO. No comment on the other articles (haven't looked yet) but if they were unsourced and then deleted I can only say this: GOOD. JBsupreme (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes PORNBIO. She also has some coverage [4]. Epbr123 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep Meets current, widely-accepted standard for inclusion, as reflected in WP guidelines. Townlake (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on misinterpretation of WP:PORNBIO#3 - The criteria on WP:PORNBIO is for deciding if a porn performer is notable. It's not a general notability criteria. Item 3 should be interpreted as "Every porn actress that has been featured on the cover of Playboy is notable", and not as "every woman featured on the cover of Playboy is notable". Thus, delete and ignore misguided keep votes by User:Joe Chill, User:Turgan, User:Milowent, User:Dismas, User:JBsupreme and User:Townlake. --Damiens.rf 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? All criteria 3 says is "Is a Playboy Playmate." How can there be a misinterpretation with that one simple sentence? "The criteria on WP:PORNBIO is for deciding if a porn performer is notable." And what about it? Your comments are nonsense. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Charlotte Kemp is not a porn performer, so her notability is not to be judged in terms of WP:PORNBIO. What's nonsense about that? --Damiens.rf 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is she not a porn performer? How does she not pass "Is a Playboy Playmate"? If your comment is so correct, why does it go against years of the guideline's use? Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Playmates are not the same as cover models. Dismas|^(talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually agree with Damiens that she's not a porn performer, and I don't think Playboy should live under the porn project, as it isn't pornography. However, that's not the way things are. Townlake (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, she passes WP:PORNBIO. Warrah (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more that didn't get the point of WP:PORNBIO. --Damiens.rf 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot of us, no? ;) Warrah (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This contributor has little or no controbutions outside of this, and has issued personal attacks. Bad faith nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aureliano Urrutia[edit]

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

Yet another example of "Wikipedia's Worst," an article with no style, no content, and utterly no import. Perhaps created by an automated "bot" with a shaky-at-best command of the English language -- perhaps written by a child playing a prank on our online compendium -- but whatever the case, this article comes off as a hoax at worst, and hackneyed at best. Perhaps the article's creator should think long and hard of what even a baseline-acceptable Wikipedia article should be, for this article is not one. Dickensfest (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Subject was, according to this New York Times article, a Mexican cabinet member under president Victoriano Huerta. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. The article, while by no means complete, establishes that the person meets WP:BIO. The nomination rationale at best demonstrates that the nominator did not look over WP:BEFORE. Note that the nominator nominated this and Frank Aloysius Tierney, which was created by the same editor, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), minutes apart. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (text differs but reason in AFD1 has not). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neek[edit]

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

Non-notable word. Appears to fail WP:OR and also fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY RWJP (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4. This was killed before for the same reason, nothing really appears to be different. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nelete, recreation of deleted material with no improvement or changed circumstances. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This contributor has little or no controbutions outside of this, and has issued personal attacks. Bad faith nomination (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Aloysius Tierney[edit]

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

The utter insignificance of the article subject is only matched by the wholly churlish and vapid prose in which this fetid abortion of an article is written. People are coming to Wikipedia to learn about worthy subjects, not to have their time wasted reading some article about a subject nobody cares about that seems as if it was written by a third-grader with a learning disability. Dickensfest (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and seems to have held notable positions. Dickensfest, I suggest you don't issue any personal attacks.--TM 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. The article, while by no means complete, establishes that the subject meets WP:BIO. This edit summary tells me that this nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the nomination rationale tells me that the nominator has not read the article in question. At best it indicates the nominator did not go over WP:BEFORE. Note that the nominator nominated this and Aureliano Urrutia, which was created by the same editor, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), minutes apart. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadao Takaoka[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. He was a guest editor of Algorithmica, so maybe I'm a little harsh. Not sure about if his work on shortest-path algorithms is a significant legacy. He invented the 2-3 heap in 1999, but this data structure is not included in any books yet, so it's probably too early to consider it a significant achievement. Pcap ping 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GS h index around 12 so may pass on WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. He works in graph theory and combinatorics; the publication rate there is fairly fast and an h-index of 12 is not really impressive, especially for someone with a pretty long career. No individual cites in triple digits, so I don't think any of his papers qualifies as very highly cited. Nothing else in the record seems particularly substantive in terms of satisfying WP:PROF. The only thing that gives me some pause is that most of his work was probably done before 1990 and our electronic search tools may not be very good in dealing with old references. Still in the absence of more explicit evidence of notability, I don't think that this passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Nsk92. Guest editorship of a special issue of a journal is not enough for WP:PROF #8. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OneCMS[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) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can not find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Promotional article with no significant 3rd party coverage. In the future use WP:PROD for uncontroversial deletions. EeepEeep (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I can't find significant coverage, doesn't mean that sources don't exist. Next time, don't try to tell me what to do. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable content management system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Watson (scientist)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. He is IEEE member, but I don't think that's sufficient. Pcap ping 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to satisfy notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. Lots of people can gain membership to IEEE (myself included) but WP:ACADEMIC criterion #3 requires the person to be an IEEE Fellow, which has much more stringent membership criteria. I looked over his CV and don't see anything to indicate he meets WP:BIO either. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associate professor and two books do not make him notable. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF - --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. kur ykh 07:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayless Conley[edit]

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

Grossly Violates BLP, Any Reliable Sources found only mention him in passing and have no biographical content. Said articles are about a land battle his church is engaged in and not about him in any way, Obvious vanity article, vio of WP:N, Unsourced etc... Nefariousski (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement for non-notable pastor Vartanza (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not indicated. Broadcasting on television does not establish notability. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is confirmed through Google News searches that turn up coverage in the Los Angeles Times and NPR: [5]. Perhaps an effort should be made to locate references before suggesting that articles get thrown out? Warrah (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I just tried a google news of "Bayless Conley" and got absolutely nothing [6]. A regular Google of "Bayless Conley" turns out 5 hits from his own website, his twitter page, and an IMDB page with the only entry being the show of his weekly sermon. The second page is his facebook, 7 more pages created by him or his church and a youtube video uploaded by his church. Kudos to Mr. Conley for his ability to self publish and self promote but vigorous self promotion does not equal Notability. Nefariousski (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really! You did Google News for the most recent news search. I did the Google News Archive search, which turned up the coverage in the Los Angeles Times and NPR that your search missed. Badmouthing Mr. Conley doesn't hide the fact that the article meets WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and mea culpa regarding the Google News Archive search but considering it's BLP and said sources have nothing to do with Conley himself I still stand strong on WP:N. First LA times is a paragraph blurb mentioning his church trying to buy land and only has one sentance about Conley, Next LA times is about the Church he preaches at and complaints about zoning laws and arguement about where it's worshippers live by city, and the rest down the page are about the land battle between the church and the city. None of which make this man any more notable than the spokesperson for a company that is subject of a class action lawsuit. Take away the land fight articles that have absolutely nothing to do with Conley as a person and you end up with well... Nothing. Nefariousski (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I'd like to apologize if you felt my initial response to your post was snarky or negative, That was not my intent by any means. Even though we seem to disagree on this issue I do appriciate you taking the time to actually do some footwork to look into sources and pointing out my mistake on the Google search. Regarding the article meeting WP:RS All of the sources from the article are selfpub from his own website. Is there something I'm not understanding regarding a BLP who's sole sources are selfpub from subject of BLP's own website? Nefariousski (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, Nefariousski. No offense taken. The article needs a rewrite, though.Warrah (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD shows this person gets plenty of mention by the Los Angeles Times and other notable newspapers. [7] Dream Focus 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources identified already. here's a brief from 1996 on the church that can help tie into the larger scheme of churches/beliefs they ascribe to. Also Google Scholar pops up a few more including "The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" which Conley was a lead. -- Banjeboi 06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note those articles are about the church and only give passing mention to Conley. None of those articles could be used as sources in a BLP since they don't give any details about Conley himself other than the fact that he's the pastor of a church that had a land use legal case going on. By the logic of his name showing up in articles not specifically about him in a reliable source I deserve my own BLP article on Wikipedia because I was quoted or mentioned in half a dozen newspaper stories over the past decade... And I assure you I definately don't meet WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its about a pastor who started a Bible study group in his home and is now the leader of 4,500-member congregation, and who has his message broadcast in more than a hundred countries, according to all the news articles. Its not the church getting all the news coverage, its the guy who does all the speaking that is, he the one being broadcast and getting people there. And most of those articles require a subscription to read more than just a summary, so you don't really know what they say. Dream Focus 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that information is available in any source but his own website which doesn't meet WP:RS. Look at the google archive linked above. EVERY article is about his church and the land battle witht he city. None are profiles on him or his story. Read the titles of the articles and it's pretty obvious that it's his Church's lawsuit and land battle if anything that is notable and the only reason his name is mentioned in those articles is because he's acting as the church's spokesman. Nefariousski (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I reworked the article some and added some more sourcing, and I agree there was definitely vanity spam in there that needed editing. Not extremely notable, but I'd say he's notable enough for inclusion. He's totally a southern california dude, isn't he, though I see all these references to him preaching in europe, africa, etc.--Milowent (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep . Nomination withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri (Korean singer)[edit]

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

~~Unsourced bio of a living person. I will gladly withdraw this nom if someone can find a source. I can't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thank you for sourcing this article. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in my dePROD, and wrote on the article's talk page, which you may or may not have reviewed, sources are given in Girl Friends (band). Likely you didn't find them because those sources are in Korean language. Did you check the article on the Korean project - I cant read it. I can sort of read the the article on the Polish project, and it has no sources. How to search for sources?, should it be for "Yuri" or perhaps "Yoo ri" or "Cha Hyun-ok" or "차현옥" -- what did you do? And Hipocrite, please inform the community of your pressing BLP concerns that motivated this nomination. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My pressing BLP concerns are that "Unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and ... deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD." - Jimbo Wales. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (EC) When WP:PRESERVE (policy) is not followed I see it as mere laziness, veiled in puff and a call to authority. Anyway, if you look at the almost unintelligeble Google translate of the Korean sources, her name seems to translate as "glass". I saw your like-minded PROD of Péter Medgyessy [8] Holy smoke! What an embarrasing lack of maturity and international perspective you display, I identify it as downright vandalism. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Am I lazy or a vandal? Could you be less civil? Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm at work right now, so I can't do anything right now, but searching "Yuri Cool" (the group she's part of) yields many, many results(recent ones, and older ones. SKS (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GOOGLE, can you read any of those sources, or could they be similar to the results when found searching for richard hertz? Hipocrite (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contribute heavily towards various Korean pop culture articles, and can read and understand Korean, being a second-generation Korean American Canadian (long story). As I said earlier, I'm at work right now so I cannot do much, but this article talk as about how this Yuri has the same name as Girls' Generation's Yuri, this article talks about Cool's 2005 breakup, this article talks about how Yuri set up her own online shopping store, and this article talks about her debut with Chae Rina for Girl Friends. Did you want more? I can do some more when I get home. SKS (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. As soon as you put that in the article, I'll hapily withdraw my nomination. Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Please withdraw. SKS (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. It doesn't have to be put in the article for us to vote keep -- it just has to exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - current article and suggested sources now show notability. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milo and the Rainbow Nasties[edit]

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

non-notable, unreferenced, unreleased game for a defunct handheld console. Mattg82 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [9]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreleased game would have to be pretty darn special to get an article, and this doesn't seem to be an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge angels[edit]

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

This term is not being used by anyone outside the group that coined it - I can find no independent secondary sources that discuss it, the only source I can find is a simple definition.[10] Wikipedia is not for listing non-notable neologisms. (challenged prod) Fences&Windows 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator, I can't find any independent sources for the term. Knowledge intensive business services are mentioned frequently, but that article doesn't mention it either - nor is it a reasonable merge candidate, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Looks like an attempt to promote this research. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable neologism, and the tissue of glittering generalities makes it look like coatrack spam as well: knowledge angel is used for depicting those people in information industries who are the most expert, understand innovations in their sector. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Do not delete"" - added references to Globe and Mail and Canadian Business who coined the term in 2000/2001 + blog post on EcoBusiness Angels (in French) and (Queen University's page). I do not think this could qualify as "coatrack spam" : I thought there was a policy on contempt and uselessly harsh wording in these pages but apparently not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustaveaime (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Gustaveaime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. without prejudice to undeleting and merging to Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition. The article is really about that, rather than being a bio (WP:BLP1E) Scott Mac (Doc) 23:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Shea[edit]

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

The subject is a student who won the 2010 Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition, which seems to be the national science fair of Ireland. I feel that this article should be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Note also that Wikipedia does not have any articles on winners of the Intel Science Talent Search (formerly the Westinghouse Science Talent Search) unless those winners went on to do other notable things. When considering the notability of achievements by children one should take into account the work of their adult mentors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your nomination includes in the last sentence the implication that such a winner is not really deserving of accolade because some grownup must have done a portion of the work. Please strike the soap-box comments and stick to issues of notability or other guidelines or policies.Edison (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel that it does go to notability, as it diffuses the achievement. This is why I think that BLPs are to be held to a higher standard; such articles attract criticism which affects a real person. Putting a line through the text won't really take it back, don't you think? Abductive (reasoning) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot "unring a bell," but striking a line like ~~this~~ removes it from the discussion and lets the AFD consider the notability of the subject rather than irrelevant jealousy.You presented no reliable source stating that some adult actually did the research leading to the prize winning environmentally-correct stove made out of tin cans. Your AFD nomination is thus weakened by your speculation and original research. Edison (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The subject, a high school student, won a national science competition, which gained significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The coverage was all about the one science competition. This is clearly less notable than a scientist with a long career of achievements. The nomination is flawed by jealous speculation about some phantom adult who somehow made some significant contribution to the work. Edison (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not assuming good faith. I am not jealous of some teenager. Read the article on the Intel Science Talent Search; it says that the participants are mentored for two years. The YSTE allows external help and requires teacher supervision; they go into detail about that on page 24 here about working in labs and hospitals. I also note that you admit this is a BLP1E. That means delete, and BLP1E is a policy, not a notability guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is an argument over whether the Intel Science Talent Search and the Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition are of similar rank, well it might be worth informing everyone that previous winners of the Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition have gone on to win or nearly win the Europe wide equivalent run by the European Commission as seen here, here, here and here (and those are just from 2006 onwards) while the 2005 winner went on to become an overnight millionaire after attracting interest from Canada. Also, the Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition gets heavy media coverage at national level each year. However, I presume this is a discussion about the notability of this particular person? --can dle •wicke 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one has not gone on to win the EU Exhibition. "Nearly win" means lose. One can have a lot of press for one event, and it is still one event. Abductive (reasoning) 10:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's rationale that this article fails WP:BLP1E. Would have no problems with the article being recreated should he go on to become a famous scientist but I don't feel that he merits a Wikipedia page at this moment in time. -- Big Dom 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE, which explicitly applies to scientists, by a long long shot. His case on WP:GNG is marginal as there is a fair degree of coverage, but balanced against the massive failure to pass WP:CREATIVE, an article on this guy is not warranted at this stage in his career. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted passes the WP:GNG and the win has since generated controversy, including one exchange on national radio (that radio show has had "massive" interest from listeners as recently as last year and stands as the second most popular radio show in a country where radio is a big deal). The nominator's rationale is unconvincing as the sources do not focus on an "adult mentor" so referring to one would violate WP:ORIGINAL and I'm not sure how deleting this because another competition in another country does not have a similar article is an appropriate argument. Also the nature of the win as a national contest which gets significant coverage each year in the papers, radio, television, internet (arguably similar to the winner of any reality television competition) where the winner goes on to compete at European level (seems like a Eurovision Song Contest for scientists). --can dle •wicke 22:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Weak Keep~~. The article barely passes WP:AUTH, because he did get national (read:significant) coverage. Also, Abductive, do you think we should have articles for one-hit wonders? mynameinc (t|c) 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a band that had one hit should at best be a redirect to the band. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

What about one-hit wonder singers, who are only notable for that one song, or actors who are only notable for one film? mynameinc (t|c) 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A one hit wonder might have sold millions of copies, and been heard by tens of millions of people. This is some kid who won a science fair, and aside from his family, friends and schoolmates, nobody has ever heard of him. Abductive (reasoning) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This science fair receives national coverage in Ireland. That's hundreds of thousands of people, at least. That's more than "his family, friends, and schoolmates." This is not a sixth-grader who did the (in)famous paper towel experiment in a school-wide science fair and won. mynameinc (t|c) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get my point. In no way is he notable, and he falls under WP:BLP1E. The absence of articles on other science fair winners of any kind or from any nation is for a reason. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This young grasshopper has been enlightened. Winning a notable contest doesn't necessarily make him notable. mynameinc (t|c) 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did invent a new type of stove that ~~will~~ could be very useful for people in third world countries. mynameinc (t|c) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is just WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why - is the "absence of articles on other science fair winners of any kind or from any nation" being used as a reason? It is possible that other nations are less serious about competitions relating to this subject and may give them less publicity just like other nations may be more interested in competitions of another variety and give them more publicity. This involves the prize being presented by top-level politicians, government ministers, Presidents, etc. at a ceremony presided over by recognisable names from radio and television. When people win reality television shows it seems they have far better chance of receiving an article. And there are millions of people in Ireland actually (at least), not just hundreds of thousands. --can dle •wicke 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the population of Ireland, but how many watch the news? Better safe than sorry. Changed "will" to "could" to comply with WP policy. mynameinc (t|c) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more people than might be thought.

Radio: The country's most listened to radio programme is about current affairs and celebrated its 25th anniversary last year. Over half were listening to radio in 2006 (those figures are a little dated so sorry about that but to show the importance of radio), this shows more popular radio programmes, including Liveline (where this win was recently subject to controversy, is the second most listened to radio show in the country and the article says it has been described by The New York Times as "the most popular radio call-in program"). Other listed among Ireland's most listened to radio programmes include RTÉ News at One and Drivetime (both on RTÉ Radio 1) as well as The Right Hook and several others (on Newstalk, Today FM etc and that's just national, as you'll have gathered from the above source local radio is even more popular), and the programmes based around current affairs are so great in number that I won't list them all.

As for television, well the most watched programme on Christmas Day 2008 was RTÉ News: Nine O'Clock. The Late Late Show features entertainment but even it discusses current affairs, as in the example of tonight's guests including the parents of conjoined twins recently in the news and appearing alongside a Hollywood actor. That's my (hastily thrown together) attempt at explaining that news seems to be a very important form of entertainment in Ireland thus bringing it back to the fact that this gets a lot of coverage each year as demonstrated. --can dle •wicke 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No such author, a/c British Library or worldCat. To me, that amounts to "obvious hoax" DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Holdsworthy[edit]

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

Unreferenced, can find nothing about subject online, possible WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not comfortable enough to call it a "blatant hoax" justifying speedy deletion, but my feeling is that it probably is a hoax. In any case, the article should be deleted because there does not appear to be any coverage of the subject in reliable sources (I've checked using a variety of search terms and functions) and he does not appear to meet WP:AUTH. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty comfortable calling this a blatant hoax when WorldCat lists no author named John Holdsworthy. Nothing plausible when you search for "Escape From Danger," either. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G3: [11]. — Rankiri (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus to keep was nearly unanimous after the article was improved and sourced during the discussion, demonstrating that its subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Aizawa[edit]

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

DELETE. The claims to fame of this non-notable biography (which has been unsourced for one year now) include the title of race queen, and, I quote, having a "large bust". I would also accept a speedy delete if the community finds that agreeable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Ja-wiki shows an extensive, high-profile career. G-news shows dozens of news articles throughout 3 years. Naturally this Delete-rather-than-work BLP Crusade is going to be hardest on the non-English subjects. Censorship always stems from some form of self-righteous bigotry. Dekkappai (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this page, as there are other specifically mentioned Japanese models of this type that have pages with not much more on them. Why should this one be targeted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyyudo (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is nominated because it has as its subject a Living Person, but offers no sources that document the facts about that person. Our policies require that Biographies of living persons be strictly and clearly sourced; this one isn't. The existance (or non-existance) of other articles about Japanese models has no bearing on this one; this debate is specifically about the article Hitomi Aizawa. If you're familiar with the subject, could you do us a favor and add some references? Have a look at Dekkeppai's Google News link, and see if some of those articles might support statements in the article. The reason to delete is a lack of sources; adding sources would address the concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkeppai and my comment above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, per Dekkeppai and ja:相澤仁美. TJRC (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't really done much work on it still, but I've found a few articles on Aizawa in the mainstream Japanese cinema site, www.cinematopics.com, such as: this interview with her on her role in a film, this article on some sort of "Air Guitar" act in which she participated, referring to her as the top idol of the gravure world ("グラビア界のトップアイドル・相澤仁美さん...") Haven't even dug into the news articles yet, but I've added the cinematopics articles, and citations from the scholarly journal Kinema Junpo to the article. It's still in pretty shoddy shape, but at least has some sourcing and evidence of "notability". Dekkappai (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, and much is made of her bustline in This article. Nevertheless, I removed the uncited claim and just referred to it in the text based on that citation. Dekkappai (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To lay to rest this question as to whether she is really known for having a "large bust" (when it didn't even have a citation ferchrissakes! My God! She might SUE US!!!) I see from more than one article, such as this one, and this one, that her nickname in the biz is "The Titty Boss" (おっぱい番長, Oppai banchō). Dekkappai (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there's evidence of "notability" as Wikipedia employs the term ("notability_W"). Now, somebody could reasonably claim that "achievements" such as having photos of hints of one's (naturally or surgically) big tits reproduced in a lot of magazines does not even start to constitute genuine notability ("notability_G"). However, notability_W and notability_G are very different. ¶ I'm surprised by one recommendation above, "improve, per [...] ja:相澤仁美": the Japanese article is little more than a list of lists; and, like virtually all article in ja:WP, only a minuscule amount of it is sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen Lutheran Church (Urbandale, Iowa)[edit]

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

This article is about a church that does not make any claim for notability. A search finds many churches known as St. Stephen Lutheran Church, but I can find no significant coverage about this one. Whpq (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this had been a typically brief article on a church, I would have suggested merging it with Urbandale, Iowa. However The article is too substantial for that. My preference is thus for Keep, but if others think it should be removed, I would suggest that it be userified to its main author, so that he can made some other use of this substantial church history, for example by placing it on the church website. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At issue is notability and not the length of the article. I agree that this material would be perfectly suitable for the Church's web site. However, Wikipedia is not the church's website, and there is no evidence of notability based on any searches or the current content in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Royal Family[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article is ridiculous. Why?

Its title is invented and has nothing to do with its subject. The whole article is a joke and the following points will prove it. If it shouldn't be deleted, the article should be moved to House of Kotromanić article, as that is the only Bosnian family that can be considered royal.
For the love of God, why is the Template:Infobox Former Country used here? Why is the text "Royal Family" (unneccessarily capitalized) put instead of the country's name? Is the author perhaps suggesting that there was a state called Royal Family? I wouldn't be surprised, as he has made several much more silly claims.
There is no such thing as agnatic monarchy. Bosnia was an elective monarchy in which the new king or queen regnant was elected by the powerful nobility. If Bosnia had been a hereditary monarchy, Jelena Gruba would have never been able to succeed her husband, which she undisputably did. Which hereditary monarchy allows the illegitimate cousin of the first king to succeed when the monarch has legitimate and illegitimate sons and then allows the widow of that ilegitimate cousin to succeed and then asigns the crown to the illegitimate (not the legitimate) son of the first king and then (after several depositions) asigns the crown to that ruler's legitimate son and then to the first ruler's legitimate son and that to the younger (not the elder) illegitmate son of the illegitimate son of the first monarch and so on? None. The claim that Bosnia was a hereditary monarchy is here to prepare the unsuspecting audience for the next claim - that Bosnia still has a royal family. How emotional, sentimental and romantic, isn't it?
The user who created it has already lied about sources. This is the first time I have ever accused a Wikipedia user of lying and I have restrained myself from doing that even when talking about User:Bosnipedian or his sockpuppet User:Regionlegion, but there is no other word to describe his behaviour (he said much worse things to me anyway). He claimed that the source he used referred to Stjepan Berislavić as Crown Prince of Bosnia. That source can be found here. After I pointed out that he contradicts his own source, he offered an unsourced explanation. Since he obviously lied about this unimportant detail, I am sure that few (if any) of the sources cited here support his claims.
This ridiculous article refers to a Princedom of Bosnia, a never-existing state mentioned by no English language sources and by no no Bosnian language sources. In this discussion, he ignored over 50 sources (and I can find over 100 sources if neccessary). He says that "science is not done by consensus" and that "it takes one person to knock down what thousands were saying before that", therefore acknowledging that this entire article is a product of his OR and POV.
The article refers to "Dobor Massacre". What is that? Reliable sources mention no such event. They mention Battle of Dobor and Battle at Dobor. But Bosnipedian/Regionlegion doesn't care about that because he prefers Dobor Massacre.
This would make Omerbašićs the only pretender royal family for Bosnia in Bosnia, thus mitigating the problem of succession crises. What?! Can I guess: you are an Omerbašić, right? That is absurd. I cannot even bring myself to properly describe such a claim. Do I have to say that no sources whatsoever in any language? This type of OR is gross.
Between 30-50 could arithmetically be said to be dynasts in the Line of Succession - in line of succession to what? To an elective monarchy abolished in 1463? To monarchs whose descendants are unknown since the 15th century?
Their heir to the throne of Bosnia could be the heir to the throne of Serbia (and possibly the throne of Croatia as well) since outranking the current claims for Serbia in terms of age, taking precedence over the opponent claims made by the deposed House of Obrenović and the deposed House of Karađorđević. More OR that makes no sense! Could the non-existing "heir to the throne of Bosnia" also be the heir to the throne of Montenegro and Albania and other former monarchies that are geographically close to Bosnia because it outranks the claims made by their dynasties in terms of age? Could the non-existing "heir to the throne of Bosnia" also be the heir to the UK, Norway, Sweden and other monarchies whose ruling dynasties are "younger" than the "House of Omerbašić" or whatever?
As already noted, the relatively most prosperous period for Mideaval Bosnia occurred during the House of Kotromanić. This House started from Berislavićs because its founder Ban Prijezda I was a Slavonian Berislavić. Oh, really? So, all the historians who have been researching the ancestry of Prijezda I are wrong because you say so?
After the erradication of the Kotromanić line, the pretender right returned to the Berislavić family. So let me get this right. After the last generation of the Kotromanić family converted to Islam and thus (according to you) forfeited their non-existing rights to the Bosnian throne, the succession passed to their c. 10th cousins many times removed. That family converted to Islam and became the Omerbašić family, who are the present Bosnian Royal Family. How, for the love of God, did the Berislavić family retain its succession rights after their conversion to Islam when the descendants of the last King's heir male (his brother Sigismund) lost theirs? Not to mention that none of these claims is sourced. Even a forged source would be better for such silly claims.
Finally, this editor thinks he has the right to refer to the laws of the United Kingdom as violation of human rights as if it were a fact. He thinks that he can say that England occupied Scotland as if it were a fact. He thinks that he can claim that England is a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's what he has written in the article I listed for deletion. That is just unbelieveable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is saying that this article is WP:SYNTHESIS. Article was written entirely by one person, and nominated for deletion one hour after being moved to mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's one of the things I am saying. Thank you for helping me express myself! But there are other points too. The article was written by one person and moved to the mainspace even though I strongly opposed what was written in it, citing over 50 sources that contradict that article. I respected the author's wishes and avoided editing it while it was a user subpage but the author still believes he owns the article, as evidenced by his repetitive removing the AfD message and telling me that I should not reinsert it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He claims that these England-related claims are "all well too referenced and documented". This makes me doubt all his other references; if his references support the England-related claims, they are obviously extremely biased and the other references are therefore very likely to be biased as well. On the other hand, this user has already said that a source says what the source doesn't say; therefore, it is possible that he is doing it again. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about how User:Regionlegion, sock puppet of Bosnipedian, was confusing PROD with AFD.

Now a sock puppet of Bosnipedian, User:Regionlegion, said that I was not allowed to "re-nominate this page for delation" (reinsert the AfD message). Please read Talk:Bosnian Royal Family as well. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the AFD tag is not allowed. I have reverted that. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Surtsicna, please don't feel you have to handle this entire thing or rebut every point yourself. Just be patient, other users will ensure the integrity of the AFD process. Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object Under the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion, step#2: "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the prod tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." My reasons were clear and according to the rules: this person seems like ambushing people who even touch on Bosnia topics. He seems a nationalist, as others have noted. The article written by Bosnipedian is new, well resourced, well written, and to the point. Please obey the regulations and remove the tag, or I will. No need to wait for 7 days. Thanks. Regionlegion (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it appears that Regionlegion has made a good-faith error in confusing the WP:PROD process with the WP:AFD process. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. Regionlegion (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Only Bosnipedian/Regionlegion has called me a nationalist in my whole life, though of course you were using two different accounts. He can't even say which nationalistic POV I am allegedly pushing. For evidence indicating that User:Regionlegion is a sock puppet of User:Bosnipedian and for a list of personal attacks I have received from those two accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I followed developing of this article by Bosnipedian and I find it very useful from beginning. It is now exciting to read. Obviously author put lot of work. It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the ruling bloodline. Now how many articles do we have in Wikipedia that are made form that perspective? Very few, mostly about large monarchies, like England and Russia. So the article deserves praise for that alone, why is it bad to have such perspective for a small country too? And by the way there are many more references in this article than this person who objects talks about. Also I don't think that his and Bosnipedian's references are in conflict. It's just that Bosnipedian uses newer ones which present new discoveries about Bosnia, such as recently discovered coat of arms of its first ban. Historians that are referenced in this article believe that all Bosnian monarchs were discendants from first Ban Borić, and it's referenced, most can be found on internet as I could find sure this rude person can too. Article has many quality references, by historians who research profesionally the noble families of Bosnia and Croatia. This person who objects behaves unreasonably, he is insulting, insinuating, reporting and editing without any regards for others or for truth. He is so mixedup in his head he even doesn't see that this article is about Bloodline through different eras, not about kingdom only (which he so protects). He now began using ad hominem attacks. That's plain ugly. He started at first attacking me when I propposed that year of "fall" of Bosnia and articles that mention it should be moved from 1463 to 1527 or 1535 because Wikipedia's list of Ottoman provinces says that first Bosnian province in Ottoman Empire was Eyalet Bosnia created in 1527, not 1463. There can be no gap, as the author says too. Then this person attacked me immediately as if ambushing or something. Does he edit full-time for Wikipedia, 24 hours a day? Amazing. Then Bosnipedian supported me (as others did too) but then this person accused that we are all the same person. Should I now accuse Abductive that he is the same person as this guy? Of course not. So I don't think he has good intentions because he keeps attacking and reacting like there is no tomorrow, and insinuating. He keeps editing his posts many times in 5 minutes, very nervously, so you can't even respond, always creates edit conflicts, several people had this problem and we called plain for what it is -- agenda. I find it disturbing that persons like this are allowed to cause such distress, how can he be allowed to go to everyone's nerves like this? So people stopped going into endless discussions with him. He has loop-logics, whatever you tell him he turns to "references say". He was told to find reference to cover the gap, and everything will be fine. But he can't because Wikipedia page on Ottoman Empire that was checked many times would have such reference long time ago. Just imagine: instead of suggesting many possible objections, such as redirecting, questioning notability, questioning specific references or specific points, what he does? He immediately wants everything deleted?? Isn't that alone very strange, since article obviously has more references than anything he mentiones or writes (he keeps talking about 40 references as at the marketplace, well this article has 60, but so what, are they potatoes. Well if they were than we should keep this article and delete all of his ones, right?! Also, within 5 minutes he attacks you no matter what you say and on what page as long as it's a topic about Bosnia. Is he the owner of that country? Perhaps Bosnipedian should include this person in the Bloodline, he sure fights for "his" version of Bosnia mercelesly, like he is the crusador from the article :) But truth is not one sided. Regionlegion (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Surtsicna's list and arguments. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed personal attacks

Comment Well you have just been debunked as a Serb (as your page says "Yugoslav" meaning Serb with nostalgia for Yugoslavia or "Greater Serbia"), so surtsicna is probably a Serb also. We answered that question now too, that is we know now that he is a Serb nationalist. Now we understand better his eagerness to freak-control every piece written about Bosnia on Wikipedia. Your Serb nationalism agenda will not be tolerated, make no mistake. Regionlegion (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet this person is not ashamed to call me a nationalist. I am disgusted. He dismisses a person's arguments because he thinks that person belongs to a nation he dislikes. That's disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This discussion has completely lost track and is primarily focused on the users rather than content. Surtsicna, I suggest you remove the information below that is not directly related to this article and move it to their relevant areas i.e. sockpuppet investigations wikietiquette alerts. As for your definition of Yugoslav Regionlegion, it is to say the least, very distorted. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I followed developing of this article by Bosnipedian and I find it very useful from beginning. It is now exciting to read." Fiction has always been more exciting to read than history.
"It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the ruling bloodline." We already have enough articles about the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina (eg. Kingdom of Bosnia and History of Bosnia and Herzegovina). It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the rulling bloodline only until 1463, when historians lose track of the ruling bloodline. From then on, it talks about hypothetical pretenders who never openly claimed the throne of Bosnia and it finishes with the family of Omerbašić who are, surprinsigly, the current Bosnian Royal Family. Referring back to my first sentence, this seems somewhat similar to The Da Vinci code.
"Now how many articles do we have in Wikipedia that are made form that perspective? Very few" Have you even wondered why there are so little (actually none) articles similar to the one you wrote? Because they get deleted. That's what happens to articles that represent one person's POV as if it were a fact (eg. England having a big conspiracy against the Catholics, etc).
"And by the way there are many more references in this article than this person who objects talks about." As has been said many times so far, Bosnipedian lied about one of his sources. He said that one of his sources said what it didn't say. He has never attempted to explain this lie. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Bosnipedian has lied about his other sources.
"It's just that Bosnipedian uses newer ones which present new discoveries about Bosnia, such as recently discovered coat of arms of its first ban. Historians that are referenced in this article believe that all Bosnian monarchs were discendants from first Ban Borić, and it's referenced." I have never disputed that. Can you find that argument among the points I raised above? No.
"This person who objects behaves unreasonably, he is insulting, insinuating, reporting and editing without any regards for others or for truth. He is so mixedup in his head... He now began using ad hominem attacks. That's plain ugly... He started at first attacking me when I propposed that year of "fall" of Bosnia... Then this person attacked me immediately as if ambushing or something..." This comes from the person who called me ignorant the first time he said anything to me. Why did he say that? Because he felt that I talk too "authoritatively". Yet he has no shame. He says that I insulted him first even though everyone can see that I didn't. Such a person does not deserve community trust.
"Then Bosnipedian supported me (as others did too)" Note that he is referring to an account which is suspected (by me and others) to be his sock master and to a user who said that they don't care anymore about the discussion (i.e. that they no longer support nor oppose).
This person has the nerves to accuse me of being a nationalist. This clearly and unambigiously nationalistic comment regarding a user who opposed him shows who is the nationalist. He is making fun of the user's username and nationality, as well as being very interested in my own nationality (as if it had anything to do with this issue). This is the second time he attacks a person the first time he writes anything to them. This has to be sanctioned.
"He keeps editing his posts many times in 5 minutes, very nervously, so you can't even respond, always creates edit conflicts, several people had this problem and we called plain for what it is -- agenda." It's not my fault that addressing all of your sill arguments is so hard. They are just so easy to miss! Anyway, "several people" and "we" again refers to him and the account I (and others) believe is his sock master.
"I find it disturbing that persons like this are allowed to cause such distress, how can he be allowed to go to everyone's nerves like this? ... So people stopped going into endless discussions with him." Again, "everyone" and "people" refers only to him and the account I (and others) believe is his sock master. I am causing distress only to you and I am only going to your nerves. I wonder why.
"He has loop-logics, whatever you tell him he turns to "references say"." Naturally, I am more prone to trust a historian than your logics. In fact, right now, I would trust Pinocchio more than I would trust you. But that is irrelevant.
"He was told to find reference to cover the gap, and everything will be fine." Wikipedia:No original research. Over 50 historians unambigiously state that the Kingdom ended in 1463. I don't need to find references for anything else. Wikipedia is not concerned with your imagination.
"Isn't that alone very strange, since article obviously has more references than anything he mentiones or writes" Unlike you, I have provided links to my references and, unlike you, I have never lied about a reference.
"(he keeps talking about 40 references as at the marketplace, well this article has 60, but so what, are they potatoes" You know very well that I am talking about more than 50 references, as I have said various time after I noticed that you keep lowering the number. Only statements that belong to common knowledge (such as the penultimate queen's children being taken to Istanbul to be raised as Muslims) have been covered by sources. The extremely dubious and bizarre claims regarding the present Bosnian Royal Family are not covered by any references. Again, he lied about one of his sources; he may have lied about all the others as well.
"Perhaps Bosnipedian should include this person in the Bloodline" Perhaps he should. Other living people mentioned have as much right to be included as I do = none.

Finally, it is interesting to point out that you ignore all my objections regarding the article itself. You concentrate on my personality. That is very telling. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open for new articles. Or is your word final?
England's conspiracy against Catholicism is as real as any other. Keep on not reading refs.
I can speak for myself, you keep accusing others of lying when it's you who's lying all the time.
You don't want to read, that's your and your countrymans problem. As Serb supreme academician Dobrica Cosic said We Serbs lie with passion, we lie inventively, we lie as no other people can.
The "others" who support your lunacy on socketpuppets is, oh what a wonder, your Serb buddy PRODUCER, or should I say, your other "I".
I'm glad you find my and Bosnipedian's arguments hard to argue against. That speaks volumes.
You trust only selected historians, that's what Serbian nationalist agenda is all about, for 2 centuries now.
NONE of your references define what they mean by a "fall". Yet the Ottomans who lived at that time knew very well when they could anounce the fall.
References about the consistency of the Bosnian Royal Family through Middle Ages are in the article. But you seem disturbed that they are not by the Serbian Academy of Science, but by other Academies. ts, ts, ts.
The only one who is concentrating on personality and seing pink elephants is you. Keep up discrediting the Serbian "school of thought".
KEYWORDS: FILL THE GAP! CODE: 1463-1527 (1535) Regionlegion (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the long-winded participants above please consider that brevity is a virtue in these discussions, and that no-one is going to count your words and decide on that basis? As to the Succession Acts, yes, they do bar Roman Catholics and people marrying RCs from the succession. It does not debar the children of such marriages - so long as the children are brought up as Anglicans (or at least non RC). This is for historical reasons which are nothing whatever to do with Bosnia. I would think that the majority of the people involved in drafting and passing the Acts had never even heard of Bosnia, and if they had, wouldn't have given a fig for the place. I am not Bosnian - I've had some Bosnian friends who were refugees in England - and I'm not Serbian, Croation or Slovene, Kossovan or former whatsit Macedonian. I'm not Turkish, either. (I am a mix of English and Scottish with something further east than Bosnia.) I consider the part of the article about England oppressing Bosnia (or so I read it) as total cobblers. England and later the UK have probably oppressed and have definitely occupied many places (even Batum!), but we had enough to bother about without Bosnia - until the chaos in the 90s. The first part of the article looked interesting - but way too long (rather like this discussion...) - but when I skimmed through to the end, well... I might have another look tomorrow if I'm feeling better than I am at the moment. Apologies for the length of my contribution. Peridon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to high posts, the Earl Marshall comes from a staunchly Roman Catholic family, and this is a hereditary post. There are bars on the monarchy, and fairly obviously on the hierarchy of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, but all other non-religious posts are open to any faith, and discrimination on grounds of race or faith is not lawful. Peridon (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points. Not sure though whether the Lords have Catholics also? In any case, I recommend you read ref.62 by a British historian Simms, about the Britain's involvement in 1992-1995 Bosnia, and ref.63 by a US International Law Professor Boyle and his testimony on how the Bosnian President fired him and took his Bosnian passport under duress by the British, after he represented Bosnia in the Bosnia v. Serbia case and wanted to expand the lawsuit to Britain as complicit in genocide for the arms embargo imposed on barehanded Bosnians. Boyle wrote the 1992 lawsuit that resulted in indicting Serbia for genocide, the first-time such indictment ever; but the case was dragged on for decade+ until after Milošević died in Hague, and ruled to have been a "limited genocide" (as if that made any sense) to Srebrenica only. Most of 1000+ mass graves 1992-1995 describe the today’s border of Republika Srpska. An Englishwoman presided over that court; a coincidence?. You are mistaken if you think that Bosnia was not interesting to London before 1992 either: how about Disraeli switching Bosnia over from the Ottomans to the Hapsburgs in 1878? Or, again, in newer times: the outlandish and stubborn support for a genocide-made Republika Srpska. (Imagine Hitler tried for war crimes, but his Nazi Germany left intact). And another example from recent times: bowing of British/EU diplomacy to the will of Serbia these days under excuse of a strong Russia, but supporting that same Serbia under Milošević in the 1990-ies when Russia was on her knees. And so on... Still I hope you enjoyed parts of the article as you say. I'm sure I did, it was real refreshment for me. Regionlegion (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are or have been peers sitting in the Lords from the following backgrounds: Jewish, Moslem (including one who is openly gay!), Parsi, Nigerian, Iraqi, West Indian, Hindu and Chinese, apart from Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Church of Scotland and atheist. I may have missed some out - this is based on the current composition. Disraeli operated a long time after the Acts of Succession in a time when the area of political interest was vastly expanded from what it had been when James II left. In those days, Bosnia was part of the Ottoman Empire, and would have been considered (if indeed it was at all) as being in Turkey. Only when the Greek independence movement was gaining notice (with the involvement of Lord Byron, whose exploits and death gained much publicity for it, and also the involvement of Sir Edward Codrington) did attention get paid to the Balkans. By this time, the UK had a growing empire elsewhere. (We ended up with Cyprus more or less by accident, having tried to give it to Greece.) Peridon (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be an illustration of synthesis and original research, along with a lack of demonstration of notability. Blathering along at excessive length is not that convincing either way.Edison (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, again. But I think also off the topic of this article, do you agree? Bosnipedian (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems that you cannot read most of the references in the article for lack of language skills, yet you claim lack of notability? From what I read, most references are notable, written by historians (sorry they're not Serb or English, oh wait there are English ones too such as Professor Simms'). Your vote is biased, at best. By the way, what does it mean "...of synthesis and original research". Did you mean to say "synthesis of original research"? I think you have no idea what you wanted to say. Regionlegion (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I meant exactly what I said. See the Wikipedia policies WP:synthesis and WP:original research. The article violates both. To be kept, an article needs WP:notability and WP:verifiability demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This article does not appear to satisfy that requirement. There are reliable sources which do not provide significant coverage, and nonreliable sources with significant coverage. The article appears to provide WP:undue weight to a particular point of view. I judge deletion arguments by their strength and not by the number of keystrokes devoted to endless repetitions of the same arguments, refighting centuries of Balkan wars. Edison (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peridon, I am sorry my comments are too long. At this page I will no longer respond to personal attacks from Bosnipedian/Regionlegion but it is difficult to ignore them. His comments (and therefore my responses to his comments) are irrelevant for the discussion so feel free to remove them or hide them. I will just say that a Serbian nationalist does not revert edits like these. That's my final response to Regionlegion/Bosnipedian's personal attacks here. Now, regarding the article, the rest of it is as bad as is the section about England being a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it invents a royal family in Bosnia. A clear hoax. You may have wondered why is England a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Because Catholicism [hated by England] is the absolutely closest to Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a revert of a one-word vandalism by an IP user. So it makes you an anti-Serb-nationalists because you reversed something off hand? Don't make me laugh. And keep on soliciting people all over the net as if there is no tomorrow. Just don't (you or your solicited supporters) answer the only question I posed: explain the GAP BETWEEN 1463-1527(1535)Regionlegion (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am an under-cover Serbian nationalist who is fighting other Serbian nationalist just to look like someone who is not a Serbian nationalist so that he can unsuspectedly promote Serbian nationalism? Isn't that an interesting conspiracy theory? I notified persons according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people: in a neutral manner. Interestingly enough, I've notified neither of two persons that believe that the article should be deleted. Anyway, I don't have to explain anything to you; you are the one who should explain the 12 points I've raised above. Why did you not allow me or other people to edit your subpage before you moved it to mainspace? The reason: WP:SYNTHESIS. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to England occupying Scotland, yes they did several times - and the Scots occupied northern England several times. However, after the death of Elizabeth I of England, the English crown passed to James VI King of Scots. He promptly moved to London as James VI and I, or I and VI depending on your point of view. The two kingdoms remained separate entities until an Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, whereupon the Scottish Parliament dissolved and members were sent from Scotland to the United Kingdom Parliament in London. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. You could as well add it to the article! I for one tried to keep it neutral from the beginning to the end. If you read the article, you will say that I do not hold sides either to London or Rome. I simply find it ridiculous that a country should exist on a border of civilizations, and be everyone's foot rug for a millennium. "Collateral damage" comes to mind. But again, please do enter that info on Scots occupying English, I had no idea. Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just seen the sentence: "England's rulers have enabled distruction which creates permanent instability in the region as well as continental Europe overall..." So now the Queen is responsible for all the evil in Europe. Wonderful. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article mention any specific ruler of England? Daydreaming? Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a person writes about "English monarchs", "English rulers" an "English monarchy" in Simple Present Tense, stressing out "today as in the past", everyone can conclude that the person is referring to the present monarch and all of their predecessors. Thus, the article clearly violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read what you wrote: "everyone can conclude"? "stressing out"? "clearly violates"? Kid, you have logics of a 10-year old. 78.46.117.146 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request To the deleters and keepers: Can we call a truce (and stay in touch) and stop the personal attacks altogether? AfD depends on informed discussion and not on 'yah boo, yer mother's ugly!'. I would like to see the discussion concentrate on the facts of the case - which is somewhat difficult for those of us with no access to the works referenced. I do possess a Serbo-Croat/English dictionary (of uncertain vintage), but have little to no knowledge of the language(s) (yes, I do know that there are differences between Serb and Croat beyond the alphabet used, and that Bosnian can be regarded as a third member of the group). I and others whose main languages are more to the west are therefore dependent on those with this knowledge, and with access to the books - even to the extent of confirming their existence. I have found articles that were apparently well-referenced until I checked on the works cited - and found them to be imaginary... Peridon (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of fact is, this discussion has ended just like the one at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1463–1878). So I agree. Only a malicious person would motion to delete a huge and well resources page based on many new references, hastily 10 minutes after the article was up. The term "barbarian" comes to mind. Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the sort of comment I was referring to. It does your case no good whatever. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not call him a barbarian. If I wanted to, I would have. I agreed with your proposal, did I not? The other side is yet to be heard from. Cheers Bosnipedian (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Name calling and personal attacks violate the policy WP:Civility and usually do not result in the AFD outcome desired by the attacker, since it makes them sound desperate. Address the article, and not the suspected shortcomings or motivations of the other editors. Edison (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You took side of the original attacker, the one who first called others names, liars etc. Now you joined the discussion although I did not call this person a barbarian, all I said was that the term "barbarian" came to mind (see the quotation marks?). Do you understand the difference and semantics? It seems you do not, just as you made that blunder above when mixing "of synthesis" and "synthesis of"... Now you offer no logical reasoning in the above besides regulations which say nothing you want to say. In other words you are hiding behind regulations that have multiple interpretations. Probably because you can not comprehend most of the references in the article as they are in languages foreign to you (while the Simms and Boyle references probably aggravated you, which I am sorry if they did). Therefore please stay away from the stuff you do not understand. Your contribution so far has been that from a position of authority, nothing else. Speaking of which, I don't know of any regulation that allows you to act from that position, without previously gaining knowledge on the subject being discussed. Also, if you are trying to provoke me, you are wasting your time. Cheers Bosnipedian (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment To Surstricna: The matter of fact is, you cited regulations only partially, leaving out the regulation that warns about bias. It says (interpreted) that all authors and all sources are by definition biased, until filtered through neutrality checks and balances. So stop raising references alone to the pedestal of all--mightiness. They alone are insufficient to establish that there is no bias (in them and otherwise). They must have an outside check. In historical science the check is called primary historical document and it supersedes all references ever written on history. In this case it is the Ottoman military records, used to create List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29 and Eyalet#Eyalets_in_1609. Learn to distinguish primary and secondary historic sources. References in historical sciences are secondary sources and when they off-hand wild guess such as "Bosnia fell in xxxx" they are called tertiary sources. Man, do I have to teach you the basics here? Bosnipedian (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JUST TO CLOSE MY ARGUMENT: Keep on playing cat and mouse for as long as you like. Wikipedia articles on the Ottoman conquest were too based on SECONDARY SOURCES that were based on PRIMARY SOURCES (the Ottoman military records). Your references are also SECONDARY sources but you are cherry-picking their TERTIARY analyses, estimates and cultural sentiment of an occupied people ("And thus Bosnia fell to the whisper" -- oh, mine). Which group of secondary sources should we trust? Western historians (unaffected by the Ottoman conquest) will without exception trust the former. Are you done, finally? (As for the insults, you just added word "idiot" to your vocabulary). Bosnipedian (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Could an admin or someone experienced in these things separate the real arguments out from the ranting, or is that not allowed? Peridon (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWe do not edit the comments of others, even if they are rambling repetitions, or if they are rants. Sometime long off-topic sections are collapsed so it takes a click to view them, but whether something is off topic or a valid part of the deletion discussion is a judgment call. Far too much of the arguments above are ad hominem attacks on the nationality or motivations of other editors. Such tactics rarely end up with the outcome the ranter desires. In due time, typically after 7 days, an admin will close this one way or the other based on the strength rather than the length of the arguments. Edison (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads badly when an admin threatens to delete an article just like that. No arguments, no discussion, nothing. Only a one-sentence verdict before trial, an ad hominem dismissal of an author based on prejudice. It's obvious to me that the author of this article has caught Wikipedia being inconsistent with its own regulations, and an inconsistency amongst its own articles where secondary sources based on primary historic sources are not allowed to override the tertiary mumblings from other secondary sources. Yet you won't admit it. You will rather sack the author and delete the article. But we saw that on Wikipedia many times, and we see it again. CIA controlling the contents -- scandal, the Climategate and an admin who edited 5000+ articles to fit global warming agenda -- scandal, the list goes on... God knows how many things we are not aware of. But it can be approximately guessed, though. Why do you think there are so few French, German, Chinese, Italian... admins and editors on the English Wikipedia? Not because you can't find any English speakers amongst them. It's because they simply ran away from English Wikipedia, years ago. Now you have a few control-freaks who edit 24h a day, but most do it in 8hr shifts, there was an article about it, of course you won't find it on English Wikipedia. Then posting of ugliest photographs you can find of persons who have critical minds and are not afraid to speak up. And so on. With such an attitude, you will do harm to no one else but those who you represent and work for. After this what you have just said above, don't tell me that English Wikipedia is "open for everyone" and an "encyclopedia which everyone can edit". This is simply not true, and it has been proven over and over again. English Wikipedia is a symbiotic brother of Google and Yahoo. Together they control the Cyberspace. He who owns the information, owns the world, said a smart guy once. Whenever you do a search in Google regardless of its interface (false) language, you always get results from the English Wikipedia placed on top, you don't get the results from sources in the language of your Google engine's (false) language interface. That's called world control my dear admin. You think you are a face, a figure, an almighty wizard?! Comical. Well my friend that's all too pathetic, in my humble opinion of course. The way how you people hide behind millions of regulations you yourselves don't understand, and which in many cases contradict each other so much so that you can use whatever regulation you want at a given time to push whatever agenda you are in charge of pushing... There, and you thought that that in the above was ranting, now you actually have real ranting. Get the difference? (I'm sure you don't have any sense of humor as you wouldn't be saying what you have been saying on this page). Regionlegion (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bosnian_Royal_Family/archive1 Peridon (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for such a quick reaction! Now we can see wether the real or false ranting attracts attention. Cheers and God bless Regionlegion (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The level of ranting seems suddenly diminished, after someone blocked an edit warrior and a suspected sockpuppet of the edit warrior. Edison (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wild fringe rant covering subjects we have better articles on elsewhere. Top quote: "Pivotal role in Bosnia's distress belongs to England, today[63][64] as in the past, via the Order of the Dragon through which England gained absolute control over the ruling families of continental Europe's countries that encircle Rome. Globally, England's monarchs achieved this through intermarrying[65] with foreign Houses...." Johnbod (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed one !vote with personal attacks

Strongly support Seems like a case of good-old-boys on a lynching rampage. The page is probably the best page on history of the Balkans I ever came across on wikipedea (not that I like visiting it often due to its bad reputation with intellectuals). Makes you wonder what founding fathers would say of this monstrous system of information control. Do yourselves a favor and unblock people. You are a shame to democracy. And you wonder why you all are laughing stock for intellectuals worldwide. You keep bringing it on yourselves. As for England, the YUCKest nation that ever inhabited the Universe, your English editors said it all. The guy above was a 100% right. NOW you know why everyone hates us. Poor Obama, what he got himself into. --38.99.65.107 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia is known among "certain" circles as the largest concentration of frustrated Jew nerds in the world. Apparently, a "source" confirmed it that it employs fulltime staff, mostly from MOSSAD and MI6, though CIA has been known to jump in from time to time as the wikipedea owner said (before he became the CNN's 30-seconds expesrt. What a laughing stock, featured on CNN! bwha--38.99.65.107 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent. Delete the FAC nom as G8. I do know that Tvrtko Kotromanic declared himself King of Bosnia in the 1350s but the state he founded collapsed shortly after his death. This article attempts to connect unrelated facts to construct a novel interpretation by synthesis, but it is a virtually unreadable house of cards. Too much of its content is unverifiable and original. Too many of its paragraphs are incomprehensible. DrKiernan (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true Neither did Bosnia "collapse soon after his death" (unless he was a Galapagos turtle who lived for over a century) nor was it him who started Bosnia. Bosnia was started two centuries before him, by Ban Boric. My God, you are judging an article you didn't even read!! What are you Doctor of, Horticulture? Ha ha, this is growing beyond hilarious. 78.46.117.146 (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Reward All that Anglos and Jews here saying is rant. Their alliance is tearing apart. Funny thing is they don't know that practically NOTHING is known about Middle Ages Bosnia, because Turks destroyed everything they found. ANYTHING one says about Bosnia old history is a SPECULATION. It’s clear to me as a historian that Anglos and Jews support the Serb version as Serbs are their old-timer allies in the Balkans. It’s nauseating nonetheless. And good actually, for we can use any chance we have to unmask those people for what they really are. Love the blazon by the way, great artwork, amazingly resembling the original. Hope to see this page on the internet (real free-for-all servers!) when you Anglos and Jews delete it. In the meantime I'm spreading the word about this page. You are in for some serious responses. So hurry up, delete it. What an amusement hoard, as someone noticed. Wikigate! Ha! 209.51.155.18 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Edison (above) spoke too soon... We are ready for serious responses. So far we're not getting anything except abuse. That may be impressive in certain places, but it isn't here. I can't check out the book references for obvious reasons, but the attacks on England are simply ridiculous. There isn't even an English Government, and hasn't been for about 300 years. I can't see any real point in the article, on re-reading it, except possibly plugging the cause of a possible pretender to a currently non-existent throne. If Bosnia did by some unlikely chance decide to become a monarchy, I think they'd do best to invite in some minor royal from elsewhere. This might have the effect of uniting the country - but I wouldn't fancy the position. I'm giving up my attempt to calm down - and in the process probably help - certain people here. Especially as things have gone as far as 'Ha!', which is only used by Victorian style novelists and by inarticulate teenagers. Peridon (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to keep What do you mean by "it isn't here"? By that, do you mean "here where everyone is allowed to edit"? Oh I see, you mean "here where only the few of us initiated know how to be responsible about editing what's only being advertised as free for everyone to edit". What a bunch oh coo-coo wannabe lawyers (regulation this, regulation that... LOL). And as the previous poster said: all your pages about Bosnian history are guesses at best. So you take sides. We get that. Concerning your remarks, here I'll repeat it: Ha! Can I now, as an inarticulate teenager (grant you, not a novelist here) be a Bosnian King? Please please please... I know I wasn't raised anywhere near the English court (thanks God, no Pharaoh-Jewish bloodline where I am), but hey you can't have everything roll down your way, can you. Can you? 78.46.117.146 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional support to keep I just noticed what this guy above was saying. Is it possible? Wikipedia is now taking secondary sources that are based on tertiary sources, over secondary sources that are based on primary sources (and which Wikipedia itself lists on its pages on Ottoman conquest of Europe)??? Did I understand this correctly, how can this be? Oh mine, this is really sweet. A primer. Wikigate has just got a new spin! Wait until I pass this one around. Ha! 78.46.117.146 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally support this page The opponent starts with "The title is made up"! Really? One would think that all titles were, hence the name. If you don't come up with a title in your term paper you end up with one or two grades lower, or even flunk. 'Counts as a lack of creativity, as they say it these days. (Oh sorry, didn't realize Wikipedia allowed articles WITHOUT titles). As an editor myself, I loved the article, it meets technically all the requirements of a good read, plus is extremely well structured, not to mention references and yes I can read them I speak five languages. Secret services controlling our minds have just gone overboard. As Ron Paul said a few days ago "We need to bring down the CIA!" As an American working in a REAL democracy (the US will be a democracy again, you can bet on it!) I say: Hell yeah! Wikipedia IS the C.I.A.! It IS going down the way it's set up, you can bet on that too. 93.104.215.164 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AS IS This mob attack on someone who wrote one awesome article that made me and others think big picture when looking at something as small as Bosnia, is the reason Wikipedia will be ashamed of for a long time. You can mark my words. The guy who is hunting witches here admitted in the above that the articles that talk about "England versus Catholics" type of politics get deleted. That's a quote, actually. Just like that, get deleted. Now, I find that disturbing and troublesome. I recommend he reads this piece on Ted Kennedy's lifetime devotion to fight against England, which he continued down from his father a former US ambassador to London who had a first-hand chance to learn who the English really are: [12] Note how hatred fits an Englishman (that piece writer), just as saying hello fits an average Joe, just as a good glove fits on a hand. There's nothing wrong with the Bosnia article, from my point of view and with this level of knowledge I got. As someone noted above, the "open for all to edit" encyclopedia seems more and more a private subsidiary of CIA and MI6, something of a digital Halliburton. Protecting political agenda at any cost won't bring any good to Wikipedia. The intelligence community which oversees all this knows that very well. But they couldn't care less, as they have a mission to accomplish and they'll spare nothing and no one in doing just that. It's up to the wikipedia community (unless every "admin" is actually an agent, which I find easy to believe) to deal with a growing animosity from the general public, and especially the intellectuals who left the sinking Wikipedia a long time ago. I am not aware of a single friend of mine who actually contributes to Wikipedia which ranks #1 on all searches in the #1 search engine (Google). They tell me they learned it long ago to stay away from the "red coats", as Wikipedia is colloquially known at cocktail parties. Now I can see why, watching live as the English and the Serbs erase all logics of the world just so to keep Rome encircled by all sorts of misery and most stupid lies one could think of. An unaccounted-for gap from 1463-1527, now that would be a good one, if it only wasn’t so sad. 173.212.236.30 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is very good. I like it. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that someone on Wiki has finally tackled the London-Rome rivalry subject (I am going to add in the article the above reference on Kennedy fighting England). I didn't expect it had anything to do with Bosnia though! This just proves that you learn something new every day. I found particularly interesting the part on how Bosnia became. It just blew my mind. A blockbuster screenplay plot no doubt. 99.198.121.199 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas it's impossible to add any references because someone seem to have hacked the page so instead of 50 or something now there are just 7 references plus many red error tags all over. And now the "needs more references" label comes. LOL Also, the deletion rampage is over, the tag on top when you try editing it says “Decision: keep”. So why is no one removing the deletion tag? Way to go Wiki! 99.198.121.199 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 99.198.121.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, I just tried fixing someone's scrambling of East European characters, as that seemed to be the problem so that the citations with special characters didn't get displayed correctly. It didn't work. I must say that in my 15 years of programmer experience I've never seen anything like this. My guess is that CIA or MI6 have broken directly into the Wikipedia servers (or oversee those anyway) and are trying to make this specific article look poor and bad. I add a KEEP vote, unless as you say the vote is over and its been decided to keep anyway? Just in case... 64.120.229.34 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I appreciate it. Thanks for the vote. They are quite something aren't they? Somehow I think they'll label you too (they added a label after my signature, see above. So if I remove it 3 times they ban me. But of course I cannot know that because the label says I never been to Wikipedia let alone contributed to it. Welcome to Obamaland.) 99.198.121.199 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start an account if you don't want to be labeled an spa. And please leave the AFD tag on the entry and please don't lie in edit summaries. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you insulting me? Everyone who follows that link can see that the tag I removed said: "For administrator use only:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

" So who is the liar, actually? 99.198.121.199 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason it says "administrator use only" is because it's not obvious how to use the tags. ALL AFD tags end with pagename/date/"keep", the closing admin is supposed to replace "keep" with the AFD result. The page you are reading now is the AFD, anyone with eyes can see that this has not been closed. Please stop messing with the tags, this isn't the first time you've removed it. Hairhorn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"anyone with eyes" is the second insult. I bet it's easier to insult than explain. Ah, what five minutes of virtual-reality power can do to a man, huh? By the way: I thought this page was about deleting versus keeping an article, and that Result of the discussion meant decision. Ah, how silly of me, having no eyes AND no brains. I better register a user name, in order to secure a right to own a brain and a pair of eyes. 99.198.121.199 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read comments that something was wrong with the page? Well I can see it fine, except for two characters at the very top of the page? I think you fixed it, just maybe you want to have a look at those remaining? 38.99.65.107 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE This is an excellent piece on history of the Balkans, and a great compilation of both recent and old literature. As a student of history I shall be recommending this article. It adds a lot to generally little known-about era and region. Thanks to the authors and contributors! I'll try to contribute something myself, time permit. (I removed the warning tag on this not being a voting as this is an open encyclopedia, don't insult our brains. This is not an article on a porn star, as someone already noticed, but a piece that requires a certain intellectual level to understand. I don't think teenager will read this page, so the warning was an insult. By the way isn't debate on deletion over as someone noticed? Why is this page still running?) 38.99.65.107 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 38.99.65.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Someone thinks that amending my signature with absurd labels entirely unrelated to the discussion, shall somehow diminish the value of my contribution, demonstrate my inability to grasp logical concepts, or even my ability to write and read. That reminds of Stalinism quite a bit. Of course, an option that you might not care about creating a zillion user names for each of the zillion Web sites, AND be on a dynamic IP address, is tough on their grey cells. Welcome to Obamaland indeed, now please take off your shoes, your underpants, and go through that hot steaming machine over there. 38.99.65.107 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as possible hoax. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fork and possibly hoax. --Yopie (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, original research, fundamental pov issues, etc. As an aside, many of the keep arguments above are relatively suspect and are almost universally sourced from IP accounts, which is troublesome (less a comment on the article at issue than on the "discussion" above). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- PROOF OF SERB VANDALISM IconicBigBen is a single-purpose account created today, and a sockpuppet of User:Surtsicna/Elizabeth_of_Serbia who is also a single-purpose account who only created one page, about alleged "Serbian" Prince of Bosnia: Stephen_I,_Ban_of_Bosnia, and for which he used only this literature: Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book II, Politika. (ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF SERBS); Veselinović, Andrija & Ljušić, Radoš (2001). Српске династије, Platoneum. (SERBIAN DYNASTIES). So this is obviously a hoaxter and Serb nationalist. He somehow had blanked Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family, and keeps reporting everyone as sockpuppets of the creator of the article, whom he also had reported in bad faith and thus had him/her banned (all of us opposing this Serb chauvinism are on three different continents, actually). He also keeps posting Speedy Deletion tag, contrary to regulations as this is a well written and well resourced article. He is largely supported by Serb friends such as PRODUCER and Greek friends like the above. 173.212.236.30 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN NOTE. Every IP in this debate is an open proxy, and has now been blocked. I hear there may also be one or two sockpuppet accounts. Accordingly I've semi-protected this debate so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Any non-sock legit anon comments can go on the talk page for now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite its title, this seems to be more of an individual writer's view of Bosnian history than a clear article about the Bosnian royal family. In fact, after reading this article, I still don't see that Bosnia actually has a royal family, in the way that I understand that term. Wikipedia already has an article about Bosnia that covers its history with less synthesis and better sources. I'd say that any useful information from this article should be merged there, if there is any useful information here that isn't already in our existing articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad mixture of original research, soap boxing and conspiracy theory. Favonian (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is horridly written, contains a lot of useless stuff. This is all a matter for the article talk page, not here. What we are left with is the apparently uncontroverted fact that Bosnia had heridatary rulers from different families, which meets the normal definition of "royal family." As such, notability is reasonably assumed, hence Keep. And edit all the material which is not simple facts out. Collect (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that we already have an article about the only royal family who ruled Bosnia: the House of Kotromanić. This article is trying to invent a new royal family who, at present, allegedly has some right to the Bosnian throne. No such family exists because no strict rule of succession ever existed in Bosnia; people were not excluded on the basis of legitimacy of their birth, their religion or their sex. Bosnia was thus an elective monarchy. The article is a badly done original research; its references do not support the disputed information. They only support information such as the surname Omerbašić (the surname of the so-called present Bosnian Royal Family) being coined from Omer and Basha - we can all see that, can we? Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations The section "Ancient Distress and Role of England" is the single dumbest piece of conspiracy-mongering I think I've read on Wikipedia, although the competition is fierce. That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote delete. Violates pretty much every policy regarding encyclopaedic accuracy and our anti-soapboxing legislation. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it clear to everyone that all the IPs who opposed the deletion are the same person (User:Bosnipedian, who has already had one blocked sockpuppet, User:Regionlegion)? Or do I need to request an investigation so that we can ignore those comments? Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the closing admin checks the IPs and discovers that they have all been blocked as open proxies. Shenanigans like these are regrettably not uncommon in AfD. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have little doubt they're the same person, but apart from proving they are open proxies,[13][14][15][16] it is not provable 100% that they're the same person. According to one confession from a related user using an open proxy, they are not using open proxies but mostly meatpuppets.[17] No doubt the closing admin will look at their policy-based arguments with this in mind, and give them due weight. It's also worth pointing out that User:IconicBigBen who favoured speedy deletion[18] has also been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this really isn't worthy to be a Wikipedia article. Perhaps recreate as a redirect to House of Kotromanić after deletion; but we really don't need all of this irrelevant information in the redirect history. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is such a thing as a "Bosnian royal family", then an article on that topic has a place in Wikipedia. This page, however, is worthless as a starting point for such an article. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like there's some kind of self-confessed meat puppet campaign going on [19], assuming that's not just another sock of Bosnipedian. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started another Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian regarding User:Goldor. I'm sure that Goldor will "strongly support" the article as soon as he is no longer regarded as a new user. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin If this is closed as a hoax then please delete also File:CoatoOfArms_BoricevicBerislavic_noframe.jpg as part of the same hoax. I can't comment on the value of File:Boricevic_dynasts_Bosnia_sm.jpg. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Enric Naval. File:Boricevic_dynasts_Bosnia_sm.jpg is also a part of the hoax. It refers to irrelevant people as crown princes of Bosnia (a non-existing title), it is factually incorrect regarding the names of actual monarchs and the name of the medieval Bosnian state and it somehow illustrates how the Omerbašić family is a descendant of the royal house of Bosnia. There are more reasons (such as grammar and inaccurate description of each monarch's foreign policy simply as being either pro-Byzantine or counter-Byzantine). Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CoatoOfArms BoricevicBerislavic noframe.jpg

Am I the only one who sees a clearly misplaced rodent in this picture? Can it be more clear that this so-called "coat of arms" is, just like the entire article, a hoax? Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms is an obvious hoax. The family tree admits it is compiled from information on wikipedia, which we know to be unreliable. They should definitely be deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as now protected has must of the irelevant stuff excised, and is likely to be utile. Collect (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the article can be utile only if turned into a redirect. We simply can't have an article that invents a royal family. It is clearly a hoax. Everything that's true is already said in other Wikipedia articles and has nothing to do with "Bosnian Royal Family". Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, this is obviously a synthesised hoax. Given the author's track record, we can't trust anything in this article. --Folantin (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arms The rodent looks somewhat odd to me. I'm no expert in Eastern European heraldry, but the rat is a strange choice. Even if it is a beaver, which I doubt, that would also be rare and only usually found in puns on names. Besides which, the heraldic beaver as a charge is really a sort of lion with a paddle tail. This looks like a cut and paste job. Far too realistic to be heraldic. The maces are odd as 'supporters', too. In actual battle, the mace tended to be used by bishops as being more in line with their holy profession. Ah, the good old days.... But those would be blunt maces, not spiked ones. Apart from the bishops and King John of Bohemia (who was blind and had to be pointed into the battle, whereafter all his side kept well clear as he just hit anything that came near), maces and flails were more lower order weapons. Swords were rather expensive, but anyone could rustle up a mace or a flail. Also odd is the presence of a bend sinister - the bar across the middle. This is most often - but not exclusively - taken to refer to some dishonour. Its presence on a shield charged with a rat is definitely unusual. As to the helm, I quote from Helmet (heraldry): "Open-visored or barred helmets are typically reserved to the highest ranks of nobility, while untitled nobility and burghers typically assume closed helms." Looks closed to me. I can't comment on the mullets (stars) being six pointed - in England they are more commonly five pointed but this is not fixed, and while in Germany six points are more usual, I have no idea on Bosnia's usage. I'm not setting myself up as an expert - but I have previously done some research into both the weapons and blazoning of the medieval period. I am open to being proved wrong. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne'M[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Only claim to fame is some minor contribution to a Lisa Lopes album (Eye Legacy). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn singer and advert. fetchcomms☛ 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable musician; article will need to be rewritten even if kept due to a significant neutral point of view violation. — The Earwig @ 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grant McFarland[edit]

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

I removed a prod from this, wishing to gain a wider input. Original concern was "Non-notable". It's a BLP that severely lacks sources and the role in the TV series seemed to be quite a minor character. That said, according to the IMDb entry, he has appeared in quite a number of episodes and the series itself is notable. I have no opinion either way on this one, but think the article deserves wider input. HJMitchell You rang? 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I endorsed the prod. Article totally lacks reliable sources. (Yeah, I know about before, but I'm sick of working on articles that the author was too lazy to properly source). Only claim is a fairly minor role in a fairly minor spin off of the Power Rangers. Doesn't seem like enough to be considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage found, and one role isn't much of a career. It's important to realize that back in 2006 people could create unreferenced articles in good faith without it being immediately tagged for deletion. Many of these articles are unsourced because editors lacked an appreciation of the need for sourcing rather than laziness.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but per WP:HEY, source anything in the article and I will !vote neutral or keep. Any reliable source at all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb shows no roles that are even borderline notable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowt but a few passing mentions. Fences&Windows 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actor. Any article sporting an imdb link as its source is implicitly acknowledging that the bottom of the sourcing barrel was reached on the first dip of the ladle. Jack Merridew 23:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I call bullshit on that theory. IMDB is a top Google hit and well-known, so naive editors reach for it as a source. An IMDB link being used does not imply that other sources are unavailable. Fences&Windows 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be as blunt (because I don't think it's called for). But IMDB may or may not be a reasonable source. For roles, director etc. Yes, I would trust IMDB and consider them a reliable source. That stuff is put their by staff. For trivia, filming locations, goofs etc. No. That's reader/member submitted and they claim they check it, but I have seen things make it that I know for a fact are not true. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I find IMDb mostly reliable- for dates and places of birth, filmographies and other relatively uncontroversial information but having an IMDb entry does not establish notability. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely correct. An IMDB entry doesn't establish notability, as we've shown time and again. Any role can get you an IMDB entry. "Guy #3 on the bus" makes it in...... Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

imdb is not a reliable source. Anyone genuinely seeking to source an article will offer rather better if it exists. If an article that's been around awhile doesn't sport better sourcing, then a) no one has tried much, b) no one cares much, or c) there's nothing much to find. Anyway, I don't count imdb as much of anything besides as a route out of here for folks interested in unencyclopeadic content. Same goes for Wikia; I'm sure some try to pass links to there off as 'sources'. I guess there's also d) no one who tried knew much about what they were doing.
I love how the article now has a filmography that was added since I last looked and how it list all sorts of stuff the guy didn't even include on the resume linked from the article. *That's* bullshite ;) Jack Merridew 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking past each other. I don't mind an EL to IMDB (as they list exhaustive filmographies), but no editor should ever use IMDB as a source. Your (a) is correct, your (b) fails as those who care may be unaware of the article or unaware of Wikipedia's requirements, and your (c) is false, as tens of thousands of articles currently lack sources but are notable (meaning that adequate references exist). Fences&Windows 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus to keep was near unanimous. The article was improved during the listing period demonstrating the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorri Bagley[edit]

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

Delete. This is a non-notable actress which fails general notability guidelines. A few bit roles listed on IMDb and what amounts to a mirror site are insufficient. JBsupreme (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant role in major network TV program (in 1999-2000, back when network TV was a big deal). --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also two awards: Star on the Horizon Award at the Ft. Lauderdale International Film Festival, and B-Movie Actress of the Year.[20][21][22]--GRuban (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:N nor has enough references for a BLPNefariousski (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject has received coverage in reliable sources. Their lack as references is a concern, but their availability is a reason to fix through regular editing... not to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have begun adding sources and invite assistance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved and now cites appropriate reference material to establish notability. betsythedevine (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking Google news search up top, I find this person gets plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 18:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears article now has sources, good work. Hey, JB, you are darn efficient around here, you could probably save tons of these articles you are prodding in the BLP Death March with your skills.--Milowent (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Hard to accept that nom wasn't readily able to see dozens of GNews hits thus easily negating any GNG concerns. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient inline citations, sufficient information about her. Certainly a photo would be a nice addition. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Delete - largely this has come out the same way as the previous two AfDs which both resulted in the article being deleted. Largely discounting the single-purpose accounts and brand new/IP addresses, the consensus I read is that the article is a self-promotional one that lacks references to reliable sources, and does not meet the notability standards for such an article. There is some significant off-Wikipedia collusion evident here and I am not convinced it reflects the activity of different people. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chidiac[edit]

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

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

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

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

Procedural nomination for IP. IP's statement below. lifebaka++ 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted for deletion. Subject is not notable. 118.209.219.96 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep good as gold! Not promotional. originator of this process should be identity checked - sounds like a vandal. Caron --124.169.32.240 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — 124.169.32.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep highly informative. Well written. Cannot see any promotional overtones. This article needs improvement not deletion.--60.240.230.169 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above is a single purpose account who has removed archived material related to this article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment different people. all entitled to debate as they all have been involved in writing article.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not perfect, but well written. Would like to see inline citations to easily reference facts. Article and subject are noteworthy/notable, but thats not reason to delete entire article. Like to see anonymous nominator IP blocked from further attempts at AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurewiki (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Azurewiki also appears to be a single purpose account.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment different people. all entitled to debate as they all have been involved in writing article.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have attempted a few inline citations, could someone please message me to let me know if im doing this right? regards, --Cafejunkie (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, AfD nominator IP is located in/near perth and uses a mobile phone to connect to the internet - I spoke with a DJ a week ago who doesnt really like the subject person and I believe he/his group is being vexatious in this attempt. Please close this afd and leave article as it is, as the Afd nominator is vexatiously attacking subject due to own interests. Hope you can verify that as well. --Cafejunkie (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep look, this has been here before and an AFd should not be here again unless the subject makes contact with wikimedia or wiki admins and notes any inclusion being unverifiable and/or incorrect. The IP noted as the nominator for Afd has no qualified location/fixed ip, etc. The ip originator of the AFD should be located and identified first for more feedback than "subject not notable". I have a fair idea of who the AfD nominator may be.

To the other voters - since the previous Afd's three important things occurred - 1) The first article attempt was poorly written, had NO references to any articles, and was a poor effort at an article by inexperienced people. 2) The article subject settled issues with wikimedia foundation (reason for 2nd afd due to subject not wanting it on here, not that it was poorly written) and 3) Subject organised with wikimedia foundation for a banner to be included that ensured the article adhered to biographies of living persons policy.

This article has been on here for two years without any further cause for deletion.

Subject is notable, the stub and the help received by admins initially to get it to stub quality proved that was a clear cut case for its inclusion. The stub was recently expanded mainly by me. I am happy to return this to stub if this helps. I am happy to edit article to adhere to inline citation policy if it helps everyone. There is a very large difference to the original AFD's because there was simply NO press or other references on the subjects achievements in the previous afd's. There is a long list noted in this iteration, and there are more references I will add to do with patents and other documentation I've found on the IP site. Subject is quite ill and does not need a person to vexatiously attack article while subject unable to comment. Article in its expanded form and his achievements, various references from notable sources, and a lot of work i have done to expand it - shouldnt be erased from here because of an unidentified ip and person not liking the article. Subject is no longer actively in the field, so i cant see self-promotion in it. I have made an edit to put "early life" at the end of article, if this helps, and will endeavour to include online citations in due course... thanks --Cafejunkie (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does not address the complete lack of inline cites by reliable sources to show the article's subject is notable. The external links given say nothing of substance about the subject or are not independent of it.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stub was contained within this boundary, however two years have past and print media is going pay per view. Its hard to bind print articles in the 80's/90's that are not online, and the age/herald sun articles in 2000-onwards are now pay-per-view. The expansion comes as part of radio interview material. The Age and Herald-Sun are major Australian independent publications, TV shows Dave and Kim and TODAY etc. are also editorially independent and are on major Public TV stations.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of your above post isn't supported by the evidence. This article was started on 17 November 2008, not two years ago. Prior to that you worked on developing it from October 2008 at User:Cafejunkie/Chidiac - you are the only person to have edited this page and there are no comments by admins on your talk page so your claim that administrators helped you develop it isn't justified. You and the subject of the article (Antchid (talk · contribs)) have contributed almost all the current version of it so claiming that its endorsed by admins is also not justified (and also irrelevant: admins' views on the notability of the subject of articles don't carry any particular weight beyond assessing whether there's a sufficient claim of notability for the article to not be subject to speedy deletion). Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a pretty clear cut case of self promotion to me, but I do wish that this IP would elaborate further. JBsupreme (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION come to mind. The first two AfDs resulted in Deletion, which begs the question if this is a case for speedy deletion as recreation of material deleted via discussion (assuming the article is practically the same as its previous incarnations).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OMG, not again! This was deleted a while ago, as noted, so speedy deletion doesn't apply. However, yet again, he or a fan has submitted a poorly-formatted article. No substantive opinion. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence the situation has changed significantly since either of the last two times this was deleted. Still self-promotion by a non-notable person. Looks like it's time to Salt this as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No references covering this person to establish his notability. The multiple keep votes by new IP and newly registered editors above are highly suspect (though common in AfDs for self promotional articles like this one). The subject of the article was involved in the previous versions of it, and I'm willing to bet that he's involved with this one as well. I agree that salting this once deleted would be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a resource material perspective I found this article to be highly informative. Before I read this article and viewed the multimedia and articles my perception was that the digital audio and video age started with the Apple Mac and ProTools, the internet cafe was a seedy looking cubicle in a dubious pocket of a city, and never realised that Michael Jackson had the first digital remix made in the early 90’s when the internet was still a dream. The digital audio remix "mashups" are a big craze today. I then began to search Atari and “ADAP II” and Internet Cafe and found poorly written information of even less significance on Wikipedia. I would have to use other sources to get more material on these subjects. Using other sources I clearly see that the Atari played a big part in Recording Studios in the 80’s/90’s. Lots of print about it yet Wikipedia hasn’t documented the devices or its pioneers. The ENIAC was the first real computer but I don’t see a timeline of progression for the devices and pioneers that progressed digital audio and video. I’ve turned to books that verify the above digital progression and this guy seems the real deal involved (proven as per reference material). I believe him to be in fact a pioneer and a notable person and this article worthy of inclusion. There is a very large gap that exists in the digital age timeline in Wikipedia that needs to be documented accurately, with the pioneers and the devices documented. Looks like from the initiator of this AfD that this is a case of politics interfering with a legitimate progression of an article. Thanks for the reading experience, the article educated me, and that is what Wikipedia is about. Sorry for the long answer, i wanted to give proper reason and persepective of my experience - Best of luck! Ric Harmon --202.146.15.12 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a good argument in AfDs and does not address the reason this article has been nominated for deletion - namely, the lack of independent in-depth coverage of Mr Chidiac. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear All,
I am the person that is the subject matter of this article.
I am not personally affiliated with anyone either editing or commenting in this debate (that would be fraud).
I wish to reserve an elaborate comment until my return to work on the 8th February, so I ask the administrator of this aFd to leave this open until shortly after my posting of such comment.
The purpose for this entry was for resourcing current and past articles on my achievements in the former industry I worked in. Theres no money in being a pioneer, so I changed my focus and industry.
I am no longer in the field to which this article is written, so the motivation of "self-promotion" should be omitted.
I cannot be made responsible for ip-based entries in the past and in future. If an unknown IP has initiated a process then other unknown IP's should be equally able to be included and heard in this debate. The aFd initiating unknown ip should be validated.
It is common for one or two people to make a lot of edits to an article, and others to make a few here and there. This is also not a valid reason for deletion.
I have just made an edit culling aspects of this article that I deem to be speculative, please note such. Apart from such edit, as per my direct communication in 2008 with the Wikimedia foundation and further direct communications by fax and e-mail when required with wikimedia through 2009, I hereby authorise such entry to be included in this encyclopaedic resource for historical purposes, so long as the included matter relates to published articles, transcripts, books, and other media (without it becoming plaigiarist).

I will ensure all here involved with this AfD that I will make a further comment upon my return on or around the 8th February 2010.

Thankyou all for your time and effort in this matter and process. I sincerely appreciate your comments, both good and bad. Its a public forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Also, please note, to the "voters" - its not the vote, its the substance and reason behind your vote that counts. Have fun! cheers Ant. --AntCee (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of that addresses the reason this article has been nominated for deletion. With all respect, the article does not present references to establish that you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that you should not edit articles concerning yourself (please see WP:COI) and you have no control over whether Wikipedia does or doesn't have an article on you or the contents of any such article as long as all the various guidelines and policies are met. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds. I recall the original AfD which led to this, where numerous pro-subject socks attempted to stack an AfD in a similar way to what has happened here. Orderinchaos 08:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very good resource. like to see citation. notable. --203.117.248.146 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)— 203.117.248.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment Afd initiator 118.209.219.96 - (INTERNODE FLOATING IP - MELBOURNE AU) has not made any significant contributions to wikipedia, actually none at all. The Afd initiator is a vandal. Admin, please close this discussion immediately and leave article as is and PROTECT for at least three months, as well, BLOCK above IP from contributions for same amount of time. J.Tung Singapore Straits Times.--202.172.48.3 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)— 202.172.48.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - An IP that has not edited Wikipedia cannot be a vandal (that requires editing articles in the first place) and cannot create an AfD directly. lifebaka would not have opened an AfD on the IP's behalf if the case was without merit.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, the IP editor is not a vandal, and it's telling that the IP socks are all claiming that he/she is. I would have nominated this article for deletion had I noticed that it had been recreated yet again. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reduce to a reasonable size. Protect if necessary to keep from being over-expanded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 January 2010

What references are there to address notability? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with previous keep. cut down the puff and keep to main notable points. refs are good. Can see pay per view articles talked about in this AfD (the age, Nov 2001, multimedia front page). Better way than going to an AfD process is to alert main editors on discussion page first before having to induce this process. --202.175.187.82 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — 202.175.187.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The brand-new IP editors (or, more likely, editor) should be aware that their comments and votes will likely be disregarded when a decision is made on closing this AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree with previous keep. Cut down the puff and keep to main notable points. Refs are good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue of notability is without a question, Chidiac is notable, main notabilites are in creating the first DVD in Real Time, and his work on modernising the Internet Cafe (not making it look like a cubicle setup). The only thing I see here that doesnt relate to the Major News Articles and refs that cover all of this entry is "Early Life". Cut this down to a reasonable size, you can safely cut out a bit here. From the points above, this should not have gone to a deletion procedure without discussion on the subject page.--60.240.117.215 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Mitev[edit]

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

Article is about an athlete who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and which fails the general notability guideline. PROD was removed by the creator of the article for no reason. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, Mitev is yet to make his debut on the senior level, proffessionally or otherwise. It looks to me like it's a case of the creator trying to save "his" article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't played in a fully-professional league, he fails WP:ATHLETE and the general notability guideline. --Carioca (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Money (group)[edit]

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

For the following reasons this article meets criteria for deletion:

Failing to meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline: since the group's formation in April 2009, they haven't gained significant coverage from reliable media publications. Therefore, there are just a few unreliable sources (including fan sites) which can provide only basic and inaccurate information about the group.

There is not enough reliable sources to expand the article with adding sufficient information. JuventiniFan (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angad chahal[edit]

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

Notability asserted, but fails notability criteria for athletes as he has only competed in local youth leagues; never in a national-level or professional competition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't come close to WP:CRIN / WP:ATH. I'm not sure that importance is asserted as district level is not two levels below professional. -SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't adhere to the criterias' of WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I see some sources that show a level of notability, there aren't any (that I see in an admittedly brief search at Google) that talk about Chahal himself - they refer to the results of a match or to the team. Surely, Chahal's career will bring him enough notability for an article - but it doesn't look like he's there quite yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Pallotto[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Primarily was the editor of a local newspaper, and other local affairs within Bridgeport, Connecticut. The only claims to notability are receiving a city's local award and formerly being the president of Easter Seals (U.S.), which doesn't stack up as substantial. Orphaned and unsourced for 3 years. JamieS93 15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN retired newspaper editor. JBsupreme (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a major national organization. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former national president of Easter Seals does not seem notable enough -- no evidence of in-depth treatment of him, anywhere (I looked in Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books). Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO standard, the only conceivable way he'd meet notability requirement. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Jones[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC: I'm not finding any real awards/achievements, and most of these results are unrelated to the subject. Unsourced BLP for 3 years. JamieS93 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. I couldn't find any references to him in any sound design publications either. andyzweb (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not to mention that going unsourced for 3 years is completely unacceptable. JBsupreme (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources. The BBC journalist is more notable of the same name... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siling mahaba[edit]

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

Another reproduction of the chili family, like siling labuyo. Siling Mahaba is the Filipino term for Capsicum annuum variety of Longum, ~~primarily the green banana pepper.~~ JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, siling mahaba is Long pepper in English, like it's direct translation from Filipino.--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator I am unaware of any evidence to support the assertion they are one and the same. I've tried to look up sources and couldn't find any. From what I've read of banana peppers in the past the name is often misapplied to other peppers too such as the hungarian wax pepper. I don't think the one nominating for deletion has put in the effort to verify his claim that they are the same. Can the one challenging the article show that the siling labuyo is a banana pepper and not a hungarian wax pepper for example? Lambanog (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love Fillipino culture and food. However WP is not a dictionary of the the Fillipino language and what people call various peppers there is way beyond its intended scope. BTW are these various kinds of peppers different species? If so each should have its own article under its scientific name. If they are cultivars of one species then probably notable peppers in the English speaking world could have their own articles. Fillipino names for peppers could maybe be slipped into an article on Fillipino food. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Northwestgnome. In the first place, Wikipedia is not a collection of translation of several names that were supposed to be in English. Second, this is the English encyclopedia. It is more expected to see English names here (you cannot see an article entitled Bangus, even though bangus is more popular in the Philippines than the milkfish term). Third, I am afraid that it is an original research that has no sources. Finally, I believe that we cannot request for reliable source regarding my stand, especially that the article concerned has no reference/s in the first place. Chili articles are named in English fashion. As I stated in another AFD discussion regarding a variant of this translation articles, if the scientific community has disputes in taxonomy, we, in Wikipedia cannot settle it down based on nebulosity or curiosity or just by how it is called in this language or so.--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it is a translation. Point to any reliable source that says they are what you claim they are. Part of the reason I created the article is because of claims such as you are making that aren't based on anything reliable that I can find. If they are the same no problem. Prove it. But I see nothing from you showing they are except what you think they are. Northwestgnome is relying on your unsourced unfounded assertion. It would be like claiming a donut is the same thing as a bagel---see the hole in the middle. No reliable source I know of claims that siling haba is the same as the banana pepper and the nominator has yet to provide proof to back his claim. Until that is established any claim that siling mahaba is just a translation is without basis.

By the way if you want a reference, I can provide one as to the existence of the siling mahaba. But then I must ask are you disputing the siling haba on the basis of notability or are you willing to stipulate that the siling haba is notable? If you wish I will bring up the matter at Tambayan Philippines. Do I really need to get confirmation that siling haba is indeed a common ingredient in many Filipino dishes? Lambanog (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For non-Filipinos' sake, yes. We need to define that it is a common spice in the Philippines. Next, "While packing some heat it is much milder and less hot than siling labuyo." is indeed dubious especially that other chili articles are designed in a way that they were classified by their hotness strength so and so. Then, "one of two common kinds of native chili found in the Philippines". Is it true that there are only two species of chili native in the Philippines?--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes two kinds in general. Do you know of others? Also are you seriously saying that you disagree with the assertion "While packing some heat it is much milder and less hot than siling labuyo."??? The siling labuyo was once considered by some the hottest chili pepper in the world. I can understand you saying the article needs a citation here and there for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar but calling the assertion dubious for anyone who knows the subject is just ridiculous and is mirrored by this AfD. If you have problems with lack of references put a reference tag. Going to AfD, however, seems to indicate a rather dubious happy-go-lucky attitude with deletion. Lambanog (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard a lot of chili pepper articles should be deleted. If there are more specific species than annuum, frutescens, chinense, baccatum, and pubescens please identify them. Currently the entire field of chili peppers is not being classified according to scientific taxonomy. They are being classified according to cultivar and popular terminology. It's nebulous at best. The siling mahaba is used by more people than some of the more esoteric peppers that get articles. There is no evidence to suggest it is the same as peppers mentioned elsewhere. If you can find something from a reliable source, please do. I'd be curious to know. Lambanog (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that siling mahaba is already classified in taxonomy, isn't it? Where is it's scientific name? Can you justify that that is another species of Capsicum annuum?

See pp. 403-404

[23]

[24]

I am sorry if this is Spanish, but is very comprehensible

Manila Bulletin source--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You simply prove my point that siling haba deserves its own article because a clear accurate definition of it is not readily available. Let me go down your list of sources and show the glaring inconsistencies:

[25] Your first source and most authoritative source claims it s a Louisiana long pepper. Apparently this contradicts your earlier assertion that it is a banana pepper.
[26] Your second source says capsicum annuum var. longum and little else.
[27] Your third source calls it a long pepper or Spanish pepper. So is it a Louisiana long pepper and is a Louisiana long pepper the same as a Spanish pepper?
[28] Your Spanish fourth source seems to call the siling haba a pimiento rojo. Perform a search on pimiento rojo and it seems that it translates to "red pepper". So no that seems inaccurate.
[29] Your last source lumps the siling haba together with the siling labuyo and calls them cayenne—which is the equivalent of saying a tabasco pepper and a serrano are cayenne.

So five sources and five different answers that do not support your assertion except for maybe that siling haba is in capsicum annuum var. longum but hey we probably could have guessed that from the start because siling haba translates to "long chili". My point still stands: no reliable source presented says this is a banana pepper and even if one could be found in the future there would seem to be conflict with other sources. 1 edit. Additions. Lambanog (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I changed my notion right above. Even the Wikipedia article on Cayenne pepper says that it is still a Capsicum annuum. Isn't Louisiana long pepper a member of the long pepper family? Didn't I say that siling haba a member of longum?

If so, what are your reliable sources then to prove my belief that you did not made an original research? At least a scientific name of siling mahaba would be better to create mahaba's spin-out in Wikipedia. For the Spanish reading, a close look on the paragraph: the paragraph says variations of how chili is called on different languages. It came that it mentioned siling-haba and the pimiento rojo mentioning suggests adjective. Have you seen a red siling haba? No?--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically speaking if someone was to create an encyclopedia article about tomatoes that did not yet exist would you jump on it and nominate the article for deletion if a reference wasn't given? Without a reference do you think the statement "tomatoes are commonly colored red" constitutes original research? Some of the comments you are making sink to that level of absurdity. Your approach to AfD is probably the kind that causes many contributors to turn away in disgust because of its petty officious bureaucratic hairsplitting.

This entire discussion so far illustrates why siling mahaba requires its own article. Long pepper redirects to a plant of piper longum that is not siling mahaba. Long chili is an overly general vague term. Capsicum annuum var. longum is also a vague term. From what I've seen of the taxonomic nomenclature relating to chili peppers I suspect the terminology probably dates back to Carolus Linnaeus himself with little if any modification. It's basically saying "long chili" in taxonomic terms. If one says siling haba, however, the chili being talked about is very clear: it is the commonly bright greenish finger chili commonly found in the Philippines. If one is going to insist that it be classified according to taxonomic classification then I would point out that retaining independent subjects for a wide swath of chili pepper varieties becomes dubious. I would argue all chili peppers should also then be reclassified: tabasco, serrano, jalapeno, bell, pablano, habanero, nagas, african birdseyes, datils, etc. —all should be folded into their taxonomic classifications. Lambanog (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it still seems to me that you need reliable information on what siling mahamba is, not just what it is not. If it can be shown that it is a distinct breed, not found outside of the Phillipines, then it should have its own article. If it is just a name for a common type of pepper then it should not. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be shown that siling mahaba is merely a local name for a common type of pepper so be it. But the onus is on those advocating deletion to prove that claim. What the siling mahaba is is found in the article. I do not think anything in that article would be considered disputable by anyone familiar with the siling mahaba, merely unreferenced. Claims that the name is just a translation are external to the article. I can understand why someone might want references added but deletion is an extreme and unfounded measure. To put things in context would you consider it acceptable if I nominated the article jalapeno for deletion simply because the sources don't seem to qualify as reliable? Someone unfamiliar with the jalapeno might conclude it is just a local Mexican name since it doesn't sound English. Lambanog (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we shouldn't be absurd on blaming history of taxonomy and inconsistencies of their naming in justifying loops and turnabouts that would ~~conceive~~ deceive other editors. Let us make straight to the point. Siling mahaba is the Filipino term for long pepper. look at their similarities by picture. Please do not quote other information that aren't useful. Like what Northwestgnome said, please give the scientific name of siling mahaba if there is.--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only person here who seems to be trying to deceive anyone is you. JL09: "Siling mahaba is the Filipino term for long pepper. look at their similarities by picture." I'm looking at the article long pepper and they don't look alike at all. You were closer with the banana pepper although still no cigar. "Long pepper" is a vague term. Siling mahaba is a far more precise term. Is it better to call a serrano pepper a red pepper? Are you in favor of reclassifying all the pepper varieties by their taxonomic classification? Then why aren't you nominating tabasco pepper, serrano pepper, jalapeno pepper, etc. for transfer? Be consistent at least. Lambanog (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Lambanog, don't take this nomination personally. I am not deceiving anyone. We are asking for reliable source regarding the claims. First, I was the one who nominated this article for this deletion. Then, you came up defending the allegations. Now, you are taking this too personal. I thought you were trying to correct taxonomic deficiencies, now you're pointing me that I am the one doing it? We're just asking for the scientific name of the siling mahaba, because we cannot verify your claims. Strength comparison seems vague. No? I presented my findings that siling mahaba is an annuum, you haven't shown any counter evidence. Now you are telling me that I am in favor of nominating huge stuff of article? By the way, what is the English equivalent of siling mahaba? I guess there is, because jalapeno, tabasco, serrano, though Spanish, are also considered names in English use. I am curious to know why you told us that var. longum is a vague term? (Isn't because it's Latin?) I want to remind you again that in Wikipedia, we have no power to correct or reclassify names validated or in dispute created by biology ("I would argue all chili peppers should also then be reclassified: tabasco, serrano, jalapeno, bell, pablano, habanero, nagas, african birdseyes, datils, etc. —all should be folded into their taxonomic classifications.").--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the disingenuous palaver. Concentrate on one thing and one thing only: prove the siling mahaba is merely the translation for another kind of pepper. Your entire claim for deletion revolves around that. If you cannot prove that withdraw this deletion attempt forthwith. Otherwise your claims of innocent motivation ring false. Lambanog (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This desperately needs sources; Let's get some of the referenced material into the article. . The major ingredients in a national cuisine normally do have descriptive names in the national language that are more precise than those used elsewhere. Similar or identical names in different areas do not necessarily refer to the same substance, so i think it much clear to not over-translate. Botanical classification is not necessarily of much help, as strain differences are critical--the various cultivars of a species can be extremely distinct in culinary properties. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the tallying algorithm hasn't counted my comments so far as a keep yet. Lambanog (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as Abductive has shown clear evidence of notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late[edit]

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

No clear reason why this short work should meet the notability policy. A shame, perhaps, but we cannot clutter WP up with everything under the sun. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of Tolkien's work and related to other, well-established articles. Have we run out of hard disk space? (I have alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth) --Pgallert (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply a bunch of reliable third-party sources discussing the subject and I'd be delighted to withdraw. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your alert to the Wikiproject. That's Campaigning. Neutralise it please. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a useful article. I suggest keeping it. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL: We need something firmer than that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be an article on Tolkien's poetry where this could be mentioned as one of his poems. Without secondary sources that talk about this one WP policy says there shouldn't be a stand-alone article on it. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a secondary source. Elphion (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are 3 Google News hits and 45 Google Book hits. The Books hits reveal scholarly attention. Therefore topic is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are weak. Being a national radio and television personality is not grounds for inclusion per WP:BLP and WP:BIO, only having substantial coverage in reliable sources is. Such coverage appears to be lacking here, at least as far as can be determined from the article and a Google search. Sandstein 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raji Sohal[edit]

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

Unremarkable freelance writer/stylist. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary claim of notability here is the fact that she's a regional and national radio and television personality, not freelance writing or fashion styling. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a national radio and television personality in Canada. Article could certainly stand expansion and better referencing. - Dravecky (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I agree with Dravecky's facts. The referenced portion of this article is one sentence long. Notability is borderline and IMO BLPs should default to delete. (I don't remember whether they do default to delete, but this is an article where that comes into play.) Chutznik (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While this may a notable concept, the article was mostly original research and/or a synthesis of ideas not conveyed by the attached sources. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Button mashing[edit]

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

This article is simply a definition of a neologism and says itself that it is "slang for gamers". PROD was removed due to the fact that the article is "longstanding", which does not address the cause for deletion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTE, no reliable sources discuss the topic in general. Polarpanda (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of original research going on here. Though the term itself may be notable, it's probably better suited as a redirect towards some article that talks about styles of gaming or something similar. --Teancum (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While cleared a noted concept within gaming itself, there's never much to say about it besides "Button mashing" - the name says it all. Plenty of reliable sources mention it, but nothing I've found nothing ever actually discusses it as the notable subject. button mashing says it all. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition, concrete origin and definition, no way could it possibly be discussed in an encyclopedic fashion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:OR. It's a well-known term, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a (slang) dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- Fails WP:OR and WP:V, I guess you could say it fails WP:N but that guideline isnt very important. Probably merge it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Slang_and_terminology And simply use the one referennce on the button mashing article to reference it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point in merging. The lone source is fishy at best, and the term is self explanatory to the point of not warranting a mention anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a merge, but I'd be fine with a Redirect in that case. --Teancum (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to have a long, detailed history that has netted it one source that is still linked to. Considering that I was still in high school when this article went up...that's bad. I'm not opposed to tagging for rescue, but the article has been tagged for almost a year...and while we may not have a formal deadline, I'd say that after nearly half a decade in existence and after being tagged for as long as it has been, it's time to let this one go.Tyrenon (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concept, discussed in academic literature. --Malkinann (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where? Polarpanda (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had a go at incorporating some of these references to button mashing in the article itself. --Malkinann (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. References are good but that only means the referenced stuff should go in another article. Chutznik (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wasn't notable as a Survivor contestant alone (see previous AfD). Her death doesn't seem like it should automatically give her notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Until we have rules that say "this coverage counts" and "that coverage doesn't", coverage is coverage. She now has coverage over a long period of time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually there are rules that govern what items should be considered as reliable. Beyond that there is a difference between trivial and and non-trivial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be easy to dismiss this under the prior deletion and invoking WP:MEMORIAL, but I agree with Peregrine that she acquired notability beyond her Survivor stint, as an activist for breast cancer research. [30]. I note that both People Magazine and Us Magazine describe her as a "celebrity" [31], which trumps my "well, I've never heard of her" card. I think she'll continue to be notable as a martyr. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –What would help would be providing reliable sources that specifically discuss her activism. I see a number of references for her Survivor stint and death. The Obits only briefly mention her as a activist for breast cancer research. ttonyb (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as a Survivor contestant, she didn't have notability outside the show. However what's happened since has granted some individual notability. A merge discussion probably wouldn't be out of the place, but there's absolutely zero reason for the information to be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jenn was memorable enough by fans that the entire Survivor community, both past contestants and viewers, has been devastated by her loss. In addition to being on Survivor, Jenn was a HUGE activist with breast cancer foundations. Mufka, her death didn't automatically give her notability. People knew who she was. Because of her Survivor stint and her immense amount of charity work with breast cancer, she deserves an article as somewhat of a tribute. There is no reason to delete this article. SMSstopper0913 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.138.172 (talk) [reply]

Comment – It would help the reviewing Admin if you would show how this satisfies any of the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:ENT? ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like others, I believe Jennifer has enough notability, even past her experience on Survivor. --BignBad (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It would help the reviewing Admin if you would show specific examples of how she meets either WP:BIO or WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite my fullest sympathies with cancer victims in general, I cannot see how this particular patient/advocate is any more notable than any of the countless people who engage in the countless cancer fundraisers all around the world. If she actually had created an important foundation or had pioneered a particularly notable type of fundraiser, then sure. But the sources I see do not state anything like this. What they say, basically, is she was a fairly proactive cancer patient. So are lots of folks, frankly. As for the show, she finished in fourth place. Typically (if arbitrarily), people care to notice only first through third: winner, runner-up, and second-runner-up; gold, silver, and bronze. Even being a winner on WP:REALITYTV does not necessarily make one encyclopedia-worthy. Moreover, the encyclopedic worth of such a winner would not automatically be augmented by that winner's having become modestly active in a worthwhile cause, because random cross-categorization (e.g., "Reality TV show cast members who participate in cancer fundraisers") is not an encyclopedic practice. Unless someone can provide a source to demonstrate that she was either a really important activist or an extraordinarily important figure on reality TV, then as much as I hate to say it, this article needs to go. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of third-party coverage and she was also an actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Listing GHIts does not address the trivial or non-trivial nature of the coverage. A small mention in an article or a short Obit is not non-trival coverage. In addition, not all of the articles in this are for this person. Although she may have acted, she does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think all that coverage is trivial, prove it. And if you add Survivor to that Google News search, only 8 sources are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – One has only to look at a sample of the articles to see if they are trivial or non-trivial. Please note the burden of evidence falls to the author of the article. I do not see an adequate number of non-Wikipedia articles in the Wikipedia article's reference section to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do it. And there is no "author" of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative website. So how about you collaborate and look through the sources I linked to and help add some to the article and make it better? Unless you're only here to bother people. The fact that the reference section has few sources has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sources that have written about this person. And the current state of an article has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of the person an article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone. Reliable sources in the article are enough. Chutznik (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article contains four sources, all of which are obituaries. And the most that any these obituaries says about her, really, is that she lost on WP:REALITYTV and then lost a battle with cancer, despite having been stronger-than-average in both respects. This makes her, I suppose, a human being who led a rather non-standard life. But how in the world does this make her the appropriate subject of an encyclopedia article? This is, after all, an encyclopedia; it is not a directory of everybody who has had unusual ups and downs in life. If there's an article that cites only obituaries, then what we have here, in a tertiary reference, is a compound obituary. And that would be fine, if the article in question were called Death of Jennifer Lyon--sort of like Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. But that's not what the article is called. There's no evidence that her death differed tremendously in its causes or effects from the deaths of countless other cancer victims. And if, as far as the sources are concerned, she didn't do anything particularly notable except, well, die, then a glaring question is begged: Why should there be an article about her life? Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bébé Manga[edit]

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

Recreation of recently deleted unsourced BLP. Possibly well-known in Cameroon, but the only source is a blog documenting a non-notable award. Google turned up nothing useful. Fails WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seem to be a lot of google news hits for her, mostly in French. Polarpanda (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who says the award is non-notable? Simply because you do not know about it does not mean it is non-notable. Anyway, I've added another source demonstrating notability.--TM 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that article is a copy of Music of Cameroon (or vice-versa). Polarpanda (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is proved by reliable sources, including BBC, RFI and Rough Guides. Julius Sahara (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She gets plenty of news coverage at http://allafrica.com/search/?string=Bebe+Manga You need a subscription to read the full articles, but there is enough in the summaries and the headlines to show she is notable. Google news search [32] has 42 results for this name, but most are not in English. Dream Focus 19:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. It took all of 1 minute to find sources, Some subjects and spelling are trickier. Google Books has a few in there that can also help. -- Banjeboi 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Notability is asserted. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diatribe from San Diego[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Also nominating:

Anna Lincoln 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main article fails WP:BAND, no secondary sources in article, no significant coverage found online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS ref that I can see of note.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aw, when I clicked on this I was hoping to read an actual diatribe. Well, I can't find any significant coverage; granted, you'd expect less for a band from 1985, but I really don't see anything that could support a claim to notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete all - non-notable band (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I am going to have to concur with all the above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to quantum spacetime. To facilitate a possible merge later, I have moved the article to userspace: User:Pekka.virta/Quantized spacetime. Chutznik (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantized spacetime[edit]

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

Looks like original research, i.e. someone's own speculation mixed in with an odd combination of physics facts. No ghits, the references are on different subject and as far as I can tell say nothing about the topic. There's a merge discussion but it's going nowhere and I don't think there's anything here worth merging. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to say delete as OR/hoax or any combination thereof. But looking at article creator contribs, this leads me to assume good faith, unfamiliarity with WP guidelines, less than optimal communication skills in writing, and a contribution in a highly exotic subfield of Spacetime. I think it's wrong to take it to AfD. The merge target is not a very active page and they should be given at least some months time to discuss. I the meantime WP may host a difficult-to-understand article which MAY be legit, may be merged or (likely) may be deleted. I see no hurry though, there is no harm done, while we wait for improvement. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator comments on the talk page: "Use of the terminology is not established in physics", apparently implying that this article covers the mathematical implications. Under these circumstances, a merge with a physics subject as suggested would seem to be questionable to me. However, he earlier stated that "The word 'quantized' is not used in math." Now I am at a loss as to what s/he wants to say and suggest to userfy. --Pgallert (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quantum spacetime. As this is the major topic discussed by this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as suggested - more like a copyvio or synthesis - I have submitted articles on this topic, so it's not OR. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to quantum spacetime, as an {{R from alternate name}}. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to quantum spacetime. This isn't exactly original research as the nominator and some commentators here proclaim, but the article does read a bit {{essay-like}}. Pcap ping 07:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to quantum spacetime, which covers the subject much better than this poorly-written essay does. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terhi outboard[edit]

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

I could not find reliable sources justifying the claims of the product. Terhi outboard does exist. But does not qualify in the basic notability criteria. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Fordyce[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT, highly promotional tone per WP:PROMO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...There is legitimate notability. Tone has been changed to neutral (sorry, I'm a paparazzi journalist). Naturally, her websites are the most credible sources; as Rebecca does, actors generally lack scholarly entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigapplestars (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be notability in the future, but she actually hasn't done anything thats been in the public eye except for a little modelling and some work as an extra. The work she may become notable for hasn't aired yet, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball as to whether it will. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Defender of torch (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her websites are the least reliable evidence so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Actors may lack scholarly entries - but they get referred to in newspaper reviews, etc. I can't see anything that indicates present or past notability, and the future hasn't arrived yet. I wish her success - and when she's got it, someone will have made an article about her before she remembers to get it done... Peridon (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks even an IMDb entry, which, for an actress/presenter, says a lot. No evidence of notability from an online search either.—DMCer™ 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indicia of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if and/or when the article can be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why she is notable Vartanza (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If anything there's a consensus that the article is, at best, problematic, but there is not a consensus for deletion or indeed any other specific action. Suggestions that the article be retitled/repurposed or merged somewhere are probably good ones but there's no agreement here as to how to go about doing that. I'd recommend that those who participated in this AfD continue the conversation on the talk page as merging/moving/turning into a redirect can all be discussed there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trash culture[edit]

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

Non-notable term, biased with a political point of view, and no sources! Not a single one. Beret work (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick database search of the term yielded 8 results (from most to least recent): A review of a Sex with Lurch record in Lesbian News, Jan. 2004 ("...all of it is a romantic glimpse of trash culture and precious tranny rock." Three reviews of the Richard Keller Simon Book -- American Literature, Jun. 2002, Virginia Quarterly Review, Spr. 2000, and Library Journal, Nov. 1, 1999. A false hit in Rolling Stone, Sept. 2, 1999 ("Part of [Kid] Rock's twisted appeal is that he's the first white hip-hopper to embrace and glorify white-trash culture in the same way that many black rappers have turned the hoarlest Shaft stereotypes into badges of mackness"). Scholarly article: "The Alien in Our Midst: Trash Culture and Good Americans in John Gardner's October Light," Novel: A Forum on Fiction, Spring97. A mention in Newsweek, Oct. 16, 1995, describing P.T. Barnum: "Perhaps unintentionally, they also establish him as the father of that uniquely American art form: trash culture." And finally, the cover story of Human Events, Jun. 16, 1995: "There is no defending today's trash culture," a screed on Nine Inch Nails lyrics, Natural Born Killers, pornography, &c. The article was reprinted from the New York Post. Other databases yield similar results. Discounting the book reviews, which are slightly different animals, none of the articles discuss the term itself; they simply use it as if its meaning were understood in the discussion of other subjects. They therefore are not suitable for use sources for this article. My gut feeling is a perfectly cromulent article could probably be written on the subject, but thus far I have not found sources necessary to do so. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I'm not sure how voting here works, but this page should be kept. Seeing that there are magazines about trash culture, art refrencing trash culture, and many other third party validations this should be kept as an encylopedic entry.Nazlfrag (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would appear to be from a 1999 book by Richard Keller Simon. The article may be giving us Simon's conclusions without telling us it's about a book of this title. No opinion on whether the book is notable or deserves an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Highly biased original research. EeepEeep (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the book title. This article should be about the book that covers this topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search up top, and it shows 1,060 results for "trash culture". Reading through that, it seems the media uses this expression quite a lot. A notable term, which deserves an article defining it, along with examples quoted from the media. Dream Focus 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~A question - when I do that search, I get 433 results without the quotes, and four results with the quotes. Did you mean to say Google news? Perhaps you used something else?~~ Random name (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I wasn't clicking on the link above, but was doing the search manually. I'm not sure why they give different results. Random name (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive edited this page before and find it to be a notable enough inclusion. Portillo (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be mostly original research. Sources that are being used to establish notability by "Vexen Crabtree" don't appear to be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. --Quarte t 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What differs from Trash culture from Low culture, or Lowbrow in general? Would a merge be appropriate? EeepEeep (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems more notable as an album by The Bad Detectives than as an encyclopedia article. Any reliably sourced information can be added to the white trash article. Otherwise the content that is attempting to established notability lacks reliable sources, and it seems more like a Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that the "trash culture" is used differently by different people. Perhaps it should be turned into a disambiguation page.--Pink Bull 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, but content probably needs to be merged somewhere. Perhaps this article, and many of the articles linked in the "See also" section need to be restructured. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Johnny Crash. history thus preserved if someone comes up with something later Scott Mac (Doc) 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Adamo[edit]

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

Nominator's rationale - delete as non-notable page, apparently created for mainly promotional purposes. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotional material removed. What matters is not why the article was created or if it contains inappropriate material (which can easily be removed) but whether it is worth retaining to benefit the encyclopedia. As he has been a member of various bands, this may well be the case, but I'm not informed enough about them to judge that. Ty 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johnny Crash – I could find some news coverage of a Stephen Adamo who was president of a financial services company, but that's not the subject of this article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is an acceptable alternative if that is deemed the best solution. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of War on Terrorism[edit]

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

This article is a nonsense list that is a POV version of the content that is in War on Terrorism, List of designated terrorist organizations and Terrorism. We've had numerous debates over what is included or not in War on Terrorism, this list seems to be created to circumvent the "list of belligerents" on the main page. This page is an indiscriminate list with no stated purpose and a vague name full of political terminology that has nothing to do with half of the entries in that list. The phrase "War on Terrorism" was almost exclusively used by the Bush administration. Most of the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" oppose the phrase "War on Terrorism", and I hear even within the US the phrase is no longer used by the current administration. Further, most of the entries in this particular list do not relate to the US campaign at all! As far as I see it, if there is a terrorist conflict it can go into Terrorism, List of designated terrorist organizations or one of the many lists that are linked to from that page, if it relates to the Bush administration campaign it can go to War on Terrorism.

Also note that the only "references" in this article are other Wikipedia pages, which is just nonsense. Anon 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft that's covered by other, better articles. EeepEeep (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too confused about what the 'War on Terror' is to be a useful article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is redundant to other articles, and possibly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the War on Terrorism. A common-sense deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only user suggesting we keep it doesn't seem convinced. That it's not the kind of group that gets written about is actually a strong argument to delete. While AFD is not for cleanup, the spammy tone combined with the lack of substantial sources attached to the article means that our best move for now is to delete, without prejudice towards recreation as a properly sourced article with a neutral tone. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FosterClub[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement. And I couldn't any reliable sources. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [33]. Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now: the article is written like an advertisement and needs to be changed, however, if the organization is serving 27,000 people, than it is a significant entity. Per Joe Chill's point, this is not the kind of group that gets books written about it; I am not surprised he only found one. That said, I checked google's archived news stories and found FosterClub covered by the SF Chronicle, Tampa Tribune, and AZ Daily Star. They seem reliable enough for me. I suggest the article be kept but that it be tagged, asking the editors to bring it up to language and tone standards. Failing that, it should be deleted. Tobit2 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Chill. Maybe the subject is notable, maybe not. If it is, starting from scratch might be the least of evils. Chutznik (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didibao[edit]

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

Unsourced and appears non-notable ~DC _{Talk To Me} 09:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator Bazonka (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have undertaken substantial effort to reference the article and remove unreferenced material. Chutznik (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Young[edit]

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

Academic whose most notable achievement is to be the head of a community college. Largely unreferenced BLP. Viridae ^Talk 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Keep under WP:Prof #5. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You could get that by being the head of the local TAFE. A bit of sensible application of the guidelines would be nice. Viridae ^Talk 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I believe Xxanthippe meant to cite WP:Prof #6 (not 5); see his comment below. #5 is limited to "a major institution of higher education and research," and a community college is not going to qualify. But #6 covers "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution..." and qualifies. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:PROF per Xxanthippe. [34], [35], [36]. The last two are pretty much solely about her. So meets WP:N too... Hobit (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as noted, meets WP:PROF; note that she's headed up two colleges, both of which are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. I don't see why the fact that they're community colleges disqualifies. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being head of a community college does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). No significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does a community college qualify as an 'academic institution' to satify WP:Prof #6? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Certainly it does. It grants associate degrees, and many students transfer from community colleges to full colleges and universities, with academic credit for courses taken at the CC. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are at least two articles largely about her. So passes WP:N too. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She does appear to meet WP:Prof #6 and have enough sources. not exactly a household name, but marginally notable Vartanza (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #6 and WP:GNG. The press coverage of her activities as president explain why #6 should extend to this level of college. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leila J. Rupp[edit]

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

Poorly referenced stub about a non notable academic, only claim to fame is editorship of a relatively minor journal. Viridae ^Talk 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have a h index from GS cites of over 20. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Commenters should fcx the article if they dont want it deleted on BLP grounds. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP (in the consensus version prior to the current edit war) talks only about the removal of contentious and inadequately sourced material from articles. It also says "Page deletion is normally a last resort" that should be used only when the problems in the article are impossible to fix using less destructive means. What in this article do you think is contentious and what evidence leads you to believe that its sourcing issues are impossible to fix? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC Vartanza (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her editorship of the Journal of Women's History (WP:PROF #8). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ahmad[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman and Rotary Club chapter president. I've noticed a cycle of articles that seem to be part of an uber-spam campaign for the man's whole family, spanning unreliable sites like you'll see in the references, and now Wikipedia. Here's an example. I can't find any legitimate source about him. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet WP:BIO; I agree with Glenfarclas that this seems like a spam campaign. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails to establish notability and cannot find GHits or GNEWS of substance to support article. ttonyb (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Irfan is a notable personality in Pakistan.He is also the winner of national performance award.Someone may be trying to sabotage his image. I think the deletion should be reconsidered. comment added by (UTC)</smallHmca2f (talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 January 2010

Note I found that the user above Hmca2f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long time spammer who randomly inserted ads into articles (in the references section) and marking the edit as minor, and seems to be almost exclusively interested in this article in question. His ads were about a Tender Service website in Pakistan - and the article is exactly about a Pakistani person specialized in such things. I found it too hard for me to assume good faith in such a situation... As I made personal comments, I'll express no opinion on the AfD itself. Blodance the Seeker 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Milowent (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland (webcast)[edit]

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

Lacks any citations or notability see WP:WEB for reasoning. andyzweb (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. There are hundreds of non-notable podcasts on the web. Historical association with a weakly notable tabloid radio program does not demonstrate notability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this podcast. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find anything about this other than at podcast hosting sites. Arenlor (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raheela Naseem[edit]

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

Non-notable allegedly "famous" Pakistani journalist. I can find no evidence whatsoever of her existence, let alone fame or accomplishments; the three references are to other Wikipedia articles where her name was added by the author. A new user declined my PROD without comment as his first edit, one minute after creating his account. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Zero GHits and zero GNEWs to support claims of notability. ttonyb (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How does that saying go again? Oh, that's right. No sources, no article. JBsupreme (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mansoor[edit]

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

Non-notable writer lacking support for claims. No GHits of substance found and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems like it might be a movie review by Hassan Mansoor, but other that that I can't really find evidence that there's a journalist named Hassan Mansoor, let alone significant coverage of him in reliable independent sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn in good faith. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Zyman[edit]

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

~~Appears to fail WP:BIO. Most it not all of the sources "cited" are primary. Pcap ping 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Nom withdrawn. Found independent sources to support that he is notable for more than one event (the New Coke thing, but also Diet Coke, etc.)[reply]

Speedy Delete poorly cited BIO's should be subject to the highest standard for article quality andyzweb (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging into an existing or as-yet-uncreated article seems to be a viable option, but there's not a consensus for a specific merge target and the discussion on that can continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series[edit]

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

WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete andyzweb (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Tomb Raider characters or similar, per generally accepted naming. See Lists of Nintendo characters. I know, I shouldn't use the other stuff exists argument, but I see no reason to delete this article. Ivanvector (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I notified an editor who is currently improving articles in the "Tomb Raider" area. If they are willing to clean-up the article, then we should keep it. Perhaps WikiProject Videogames may also help, they were previously notified of this AfD. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is an older article (by a year, according to edit history) called Tomb Raider characters. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I contested the prod there and will initiate discussions on a potential merge/page move at the relevant WikiProject. (Unless this is deleted in which case there is nothing to merge.) --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relevant discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Tomb_Raider_Characters.2C_two_pages_to_be_merged_possibly., hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge with Tomb Raider characters into a new article List of Tomb Raider Characters. Also nominator did not specifically mention why it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Simply listing them is not grounds for nomination. Why does it fail? No rationale given for the failings, no legs to stand on. --Teancum (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I recopy the text of PLOT or GUIDE, what's the point of having shortcuts? The sections are either plot-only descriptions, or guides to how to reach interaction points with the characters or what action to use for an outcome plus a plot description. Now... that looks like I copied the shortcuts I listed as reasons for deletion... which seems a rather pointless exercise in excessive verbage and duplication. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you need to explain which criteria it fails in either of those. There are multiple reasons for failure. See WP:ATA -- an example from that page is as follows ---- Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. --Teancum (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plot-only fancruft and game guide information with no basis in the real world. I would also support the deletion of Tomb Raider characters. I'm not discounting the possibility of a complete rewrite at Characters of Tomb Raider but as they are now, neither character article is encyclopedic and thus would not be conducive to merging. The characters would be better off summarized at their respecive game articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, which is the default whenever the WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument enters a discussion. Anyway, keep as well due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content concerning characters from an astonishingly important game series that has spawned two mainstream movies and even an amusment park ride must urgently be protected from the public eye. The article passes WP:LISTS by being a discriminate listing that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notablility has not been established here. There's only one third party reference, and that's to the IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. Notability for the series does not mean immediate notability for secondary characters. If the secondary characters cannot stand on their own as notable, the article cannot stand. While I'd much prefer cleanup and sourcing per the WP:VG guidelines, I don't see how these characters could ever stand solely on their own with reliable, third party sources. A few might, but on the whole they couldn't. As far as passing WP:LISTS, the guideline has this to say: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. The Tomb Raider character list as it stands is not encyclopedic, being merely a re-hash of the plot in relation to the characters. That coupled with notability issues makes this a tough one to support. One article for all major sub-characters that's sourced well with reliable, third party sources I can support, but I found no sources that could be used to help this article. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one way or another, bullying a merge is unhelpful. Find ways to serve our readers. Obviously a character list is acceptable, what remains is one or two and if split, how? Seems the current split is causing more problems than solving. I certainly could be wrong. I would expect major and minor characters so "recurring" jars a bit although there may be good reasons for it. As always with a list, expand the lede to spell out the nuances and significance so the rest of us can read that and move on. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We really should just have this discussion once, instead of repeating it time and again. Keep for the same reasons all the other AFD about list of game characters was kept. They are notable fictional characters, who are found in multiple notable works, and often get plenty of coverage, as much as a real person would, in game review shows, magazine articles, and whatnot. And by Keep I mean to keep the entire article, not "prune" 90% of it, or try to replace it with a redirect(as has happened elsewhere time and again). Dream Focus 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long running fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tomb Raider characters. Pare down drastically, and remove the copyviolating images. Abductive (reasoning) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Khalife[edit]

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

Non notable entertainer. Viridae ^Talk 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's quite notable as a TV presenter and host of Star Academy Arab World See [37] as a source solely about her. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being "recognizeable" doesn't make you notable. I don't see evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an article solely about her not significant coverage? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a very credible claim to notability backed up by sources, though it could do with more reliable sources. I'm all in favour of deletion of poorly referenced BLPs but we need to be careful with babies and bathwater. HJMitchell You rang? 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability in the Arab world is notability for en.Wikipedia. And being aware of how some names become Anglicized, I note that she is also sourcable as "Hilda Khalifeh", with note of her work in Afrik [38], and a bit more coverage in Waleg [39], something called Wikeez [40]... and she even has a fan club [41]. Finding western sources for Arabic notables is difficult... but we have enough to show we're aware the systemic bias can be countered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnston (author)[edit]

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

Non notable, unreferenced biography of a ~~local politician~~(wrong article) academic. Viridae ^Talk 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a politician to start. Highly published academic. Too far out of my field to know if he's highly cited, but he's certainly prolific in peer-reviewed journals. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know much about this subject, so I remain neutral here, just a remark about the comment posted by Hobit just above: publishing is what academics do. If those publications go unremarked (as most actually do), that does not establish notability. So the fact that this person has published in and of itself does not make him notable (and it isn't that much either, my current postdoc has as many publications as he). What is needed to establish notability is evidence that his publications have impacted/influenced others. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, which is why I'm unable to evaluate his impact. I _think_ this guy has about 40-60 publications, but I'm really not sure as the name is too common. If you've got a post-doc with that many, the economy must be worse than I thought... In any case, there are reviews of his books [42] and the like. I don't know how to compute an "h index" for such a common name, but [43] indicates he's got at least one book with a large number of cites. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the economy was better... I had 43 publications when I got my first faculty position... (Anyway, I was referring to the number of publications listed in the article). The book has 150 cites (according to Google Scholar, which I find notoriously unreliable, but at least it's an approximation). That's nice, but one book with that number of cites is not enough to establish notability, I think. You yourself say that you're "unable to evaluate his impact", so I wondered why you vote "keep", is all. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll go with "I'm unable to be sure" in this field. In my field (computer engineering) I'd call it a clear keep. I'm trying to be clear that I'm willing to be wrong on this one but my limited knowledge of the topic puts him in the notable category. And people publish that many papers in neuroscience? Note to self: don't change fields. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references that demonstrate notability that has been established by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added some more info and biog and Book and link to Book Review (Msrasnw (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep His book has been widely reviewed in peer reviewed acadmic journals and has been widely cited and used. This alone seems enough to pass our test of notability (Msrasnw (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Academic with no significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one book, otherwise I don't see anything to pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see that this article is one that might with effort be saved. He is not just an academic, so someone needs to look into the union organizer part of his career as well as other aspects. Unfortunately I do have the time or knowledge to try to save it. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Such a common name that it is hard to be clear about what on the web is his. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. The reviews for it make a plausible case that we could have an article about his book, but that's the only thing that seems notable here. It doesn't seem that he passes WP:PROF for anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Nitzani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Now slightly (but poorly) sourced. Entertainer with no apparent notability. Viridae ^Talk 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article are enough to show notability. For example [44] is solely about the topic in a major newspaper. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Virtually unknown in the 'English' world but notable known person in Israel. HE WP article is more developed, article is a few years old with edits and uncontested. --Shuki (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FarPoint Media Network[edit]

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

Lacking reliable sources. Has questionable notability. Written like an advertisement. andyzweb (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion (unless article substantially improved). There is also the fearless Michael R. Mennenga whose article is even flimsier. Occuli (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Slice of SciFi, their lone semi-notable creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Arenlor (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A near unanimous keep after the article was sourced and improved during the listing period (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sitti Navarro[edit]

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

Contested prod. BLP has been without references since Nov 2006 Non-notable pop star. Viridae ^Talk 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator andyzweb (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:MUSIC darn easily. Major label (Warner), Platinum and Gold albums in home country. Also would seem to meet WP:N [45]. Hobit (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing to suggest WP:BEFORE was followed here, and sources have been added by another editor. After a little editing appears to be clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just added some references. FYI, she is often credited as just Sitti in the Philippines (for those who want to do some google search). --Bluemask (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Addition of sources proves notability. --seav (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Madnick[edit]

Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP, prod was removed and no references added. Not notable academic puff piece. Viridae ^Talk 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article does not meet WP:PROF. This article does indeed seem like WP:PUFF; the subject supposedly has made "significant contributions" to the industry, but that is not backed up by reliable sources. ~~In fact, this BLP is unreferenced except for the subject's MIT faculty bio.~~ As a side note, the subject apparently runs a hotel out of a castle he owns and has taken the title of "baron"; I don't think that establishes notability ~~either~~. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep First it's not unreferenced. Secondly meets WP:PROF#5. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect does he meet WP:PROF #5? I came to the opposite conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a named professor with an endowed chair. I believe that does it. Also [46] is very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good points. I'm revising my opinion to keep based on the references added and because WP:PROF is met. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I have counted correctly the subject has an h index of 29; a clear keep on WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. (not necessarily with you maths). h-index doesn't give inherant notability. Viridae ^Talk 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've got to be kidding: a named chair at MIT, no less, and highly cited (per Xxanthippe). Meets WP:PROF twice over. --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was AfD'd because it's an unsourced BLP. This is no kidding, this is serious stuff, exactly what will happen to 50,000+ articles if a renegade gang of editors get their way, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. He has authored or coauthored 250 books; Not notable academic puff piece. Bah, lousy nomination, but instructive nevertheless. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A Google News search more than confirms notability: [47]. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF #1, #4, and (most obviously) #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article, Stuart Madnick, is more than likely an autobio (being created by Smadnick (talk · contribs)), entirely unsourced and sounds promotional("prolific writer", "significant contributions", yet even the only primary source he provided didn't mention "significant contributions"). Given that it has not improved since its creation (in 2006), and it sounds so much like a resume that it would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic, I'm with deleting it without prejudice to further recreation. (Please consider this seriously. If it weren't such an autobio, I might as well already had this AfD NACed as snow keep.) Blodance the Seeker 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the guy most have some time on his hands. When he isn't keeping his castle or tending to his two professorships he's wikifiddling. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable professor, MIT is quite an important academic institution. Referencing is not currently ideal but it clearly isn't unreferenced. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep (by an admin, please) - this looks like a case of WP:SNOW. Given his position he's presumptively notable under WP:PROF, and if there's still a lack of sourcing I'll just go ahead and add one so the original complaint is moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! While y'all were fighting here and at Arbcom, Giftlite, Hipocrite, and I fixed the sourcing / notability problem. I'll probably take a few more passes at it and the article still needs a lot of work but this page isn't a great place to get that done. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost as though a test case were desired where the person is notable sans contention. Collect (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Miège[edit]

Unsourced contested PROD. Prod, which called for sources or deletion, was removed and no refs added. Not notable or barely notable academic. Academics publish a lot. That doesn't increase their notability. Viridae ^Talk 06:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N by a wide margin [48]. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A former university president who has received at least two honorary doctorates, and probably four. Please, please remember WP:BEFORE. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #6 and possibly also #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. An ill-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Refs added. Clearly notable for his "cultural industries" works. Not even a close call here. Collect (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irisonline[edit]

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

Seemingly not-notable online game. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections[edit]

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

Synthesis and original research issues aside, this is an unnecessary content fork of Batty Langley ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge a paragraph or two into Batty Langley, per WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, and possible WP:OR, as stated above. How anyone could think the alleged freemasonry of this garden designer is a proper topic for a standalone article escapes me. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Merge first sentence of intro to Batty Langley. MuffledThud (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ... well, everything mentioned above. Courtesy blank as possibly contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but a courtesy blank is not needed because he's long dead. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I mean to disagree with you, but are you saying that biographies about the deceased can never be contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that it is per se not libelous, no real harm is being done, and there is no reason to be courteous, to a man dead for centuries. The general rule is to keep footprints -- records of past changes. "Contentious" has no meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I used the wrong word then, I meant to use the word that meant potentially libelous. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that our little side discussion has no impact on this AfD? Consensus here is pretty clear. Ivanvector (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith AFD started by sockpuppet of banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thomas (composer)[edit]

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

Subject has received no significant awards for his "work," and neither has he been written about in reputable publications. There is a reason this article has no sources--its because no sources exist. Don't let his being a classical composer blind you to the reality that this man is not-notable. This article demonstrates that the subject's level of achievement and recognition is that of your average "Myspace" garage band. Politoman (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD will have to await input from musicians, but I find the offensive tone of the nomination to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. The nominator started editing on WP two days ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pwang War[edit]

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

Hi, I think that that this article may be nonsense, or be titled incorrectly. A google search for "Pwang War" turns up no relevant results; I suspect that if this war were notable enough to be covered in a general history of East Asia (the reference cited), there should be at least some result for the article name on google. A search for "Treaty of Geeba," which ended the war according to the article, also turns up no results. When I search the terms "Pwang" and "Geeba" in "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" on Google Books, I also find no results. So, I suggest deleting this article, unless someone can come up with a source for this information. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running through a history archive I have access to I still can't find anything. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extensive search in various Chinese sources failed to find even the slightest indication that this war did took place(nor any Sino-mongolian war took place in 1455, not even the General Wong mentioned). This is highly likely to be a hoax. Blodance the Seeker 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the names don't make any sense, let alone appear in the purported reference. "Geeba" (pinyin "jiba") actually seems to be a vulgar word in Chinese. --Latebird (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a slang term for "penis", pretty much like the term "cock" in English. Blodance the Seeker 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax to me. Yaan (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on my own searches and Blodance's comments above, this passes the WP:DUCK test for a hoax. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Overwhelming evidence presented that this doesn't exist. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No region specified, "Leevitain" sounds rather biblical than Mongolian. Did somebody look up the alleged source, by the way? G Purevdorj (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books allows limited searches. I tried, but nothing. --Auric (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Decline WP:CSD#A7, that doesn't apply to made-up "days", but on this particular "day" it's SNOWing. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Day[edit]

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

Non-notable holiday. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I hate to say this. (It's a bad reason) but per nom. Fails WP:GNG NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to WP:IAR and tag this for speedy as an attempt to circumvent the wording of speedy criterion A7 (people). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. EeepEeep (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might not be made up, but a holiday invented by the staff of a non-notable newspaper is not notable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and WP:MADEUP. IAR to speedy delete may be appropriate as well, but at this point WP:SNOW works just as well. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. If someone created this article in hopes of convincing people to give them gifts on this holiday, they made a mistake in scheduling the holiday in October. This article will be lucky to last until January 28, much less October. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:HOAX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:IINFO, WP:SNOW, etc, etc. See below. Ivanvector (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even if it takes the mighty WP:IAR to make it happen. Pitiful vanity article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per all of the above and not even a straight-faced attempt to assert notability. There should be a speedy category for things like this. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. I thought the tag was declined by an administrator, but when I went looking for the explanation, I realized it was the page creator that removed the tag, without due process. Hence my change of !vote. Ivanvector (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. –MuZemike 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of GTA[edit]

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

Contested prod. ~~Unreferenced~~, unencyclopedic speculation, original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Essay, WP:SYNTHESIS NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculative. In the past I've argued that we should apply Wikipedia:Notability (films) to games or come up with a new set of guidelines specifically for games. Specifically relevant here: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." For games I would actually propose a higher standard, as in production games are frequently delayed and/or canceled (see Duke Nukem Forever). EeepEeep (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does have references and I think it is highly due that this subject has its own page. --Jonnyzoo 93 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL andyzweb (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and by appropriate extension from WP:HAMMERTIME. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little cited speculation is OK in general in existing articles when talking about the next game in the series. But an article all on its own crosses the line into WP:CRYSTAL. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Looking into the future blindly is not encyclopedic. If something hasn't been confirmed, no article is needed. If it has and there are reliable sources and significant coverage to back it up, then it should have inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CBALL --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: futuristic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclaughlin9 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, generally speaking, it is not within the scope of an encyclopedia to speculate on possible future events. Kill it before we get a wave of hundreds of "Future of..." articles on various subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may be of note to mention the article creator's malicious edits here, here, and here. --Teancum (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and also here EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No notability here until a future game gains significant coverage, in which case it can have its own article anyway. This is redundant. --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has many references and sources to back it up which means it should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.143.226 (talk • contribs) — 124.181.143.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are only three references, and only one is reliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE violates WP:CRYSTAL --mhking (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL and even without that it needs a complete rewrite - after the game's announced. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Rogers[edit]

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

Previous editor drastically cut the article down; I restored some of its content (really, the guy's claim to fame) and added a reference (all I could find, that is; see this search), but it's not enough to keep it. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This author does not appear to rise above the general notability guideline or any other relevant guideline I can think of that might apply. JBsupreme (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme. I was just going to say non-notable. Viridae ^Talk

Delete Does not pass WPAUTHOR. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect already completed with no objection for several days. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Richards[edit]

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

There is a claim to notability here (a prod was removed), but this unreferenced BLP is destined to remain unreferenced--look, for instance, at the results of this Google search--and that's for her claim to fame, her role in Pobol Y Cwm. I found her resume, here, but even that doesn't suggest she's WP-worthy. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The credentials seem to add up to notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What credentials, precisely? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, wait--as "references" you added a bio from the college she attended, which confirms her height and hair color, and you added the above-linked resume (from her agent, no less) to verify the rest? That doesn't even begin to satisfy WP:N, even if such wildly non-reliable sources were in fact reliable. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely non-notable. Viridae ^Talk 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Completely non notable? And you think Brooke Brodack is? Youtube celebrities compared to classically trained actresses. Mmmm. Why, because she is Welsh? She has appeared in notable series and aan advert for the National Assembly for Wales in Wales, (if she was a nobody why would she have been selected?) In fact, Pobol y Cwm is listed as one of the major soaps in the UK and the biggest in the welsh language, produced by the BBC so in my humble opinion an actress who has starred in a notable series for years for the BBC, one of the world's most respected broadcasting institutions is clearly notable. It is no different to covering say a telenovela actress from South America or an Irish TV actress or something. Reliable sources exist, but they do not seem to be in abundance. I am surprised there are not more sources about her online actually. If we must delete, delete but as an actress from Wales she would seem to meet requirements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find additional reliable sources that demonstrate her notability. The given references certainly do not demonstrate notability, and I can't find anything substantial via a Google search. So perhaps she is notable, but verifiability is the issue? PDCook (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. A thought occurred to me. Perhaps we should merge some of the Pobl actor stubs into the series article and give a brief description of each actor. Some of the actors are only noted for appearing in the series so that would be best. I would have no issues with redirecting into this article unless the actor has a substantial filmography and number of sources to make it an adequate seperate article. Any thoughts Dr. Mies? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat}

~~week Keep or~~ merge per Dr. Blofeld. Of a certainly she's verifiable (http://www.cinelgabran.co.uk/web/CV%27s/Actress_English/CV%20Rosalind%20Richards.pdf). The question is if she's notable. Given the language issues involved, I'm going with "probably". Hobit (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But Hobit, that's from her management company. It's my job not to believe those kinds of things. I'm certainly amenable, by the way, to Ernst's suggestion. See below: Drmies (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just did some seriously looking and I agree. If she did play the character on the show I'm having a hard time proving it. A merge might well be reasonable, but I don't see a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld, if you care to merge this one to the show, and any of the others that are as yet unsourced and are similar to this, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD and we'll leave a nice redirect, since I have no intention of sending Ms. Richards into oblivion. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree Hobit and Drmies, I was surprised there is not much about her online. Tomorrow then I'll merge a few Pobl bios into the main article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UVa Online Judge[edit]

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

I'm not seeing independent coverage of this software, just because it exists and has its own website isn't grounds for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub, but it has two independent 3rd party sources cited already. Add more sources and content, don't delete it. LotLE×talk 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would appear to be an academic product that has a variety of Scholar hits that would appear to be significant and pertinent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per also numerous book sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional stub. Academic works are not notable in and of themselves, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics); no evidence of significant impact or 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking a guideline for academic people in an article describing essentially software? And, ehm, we have linked significant 3rd party coverage above? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guidelines for academic software, but the guidelines for academics are closely related and provide a useful reference for accessing notability. Academic publications do not constitute significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, academic publications do constitute significant 3rd party coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not say academic publications are notable. The issue is that academic communities are highly focused and closed to the outside world - you could be the top person in your field but completely unknown.

Does this topic have any significant coverage outside of the small community in which it is used? None of the references you listed show significant 3rd party coverage - they are just papers written by academics in the field. Where is the evidence of impact and coverage outside of the field? A google search just yields UVa and ACM related links. No coverage by mainstream press.

It could be a section on ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest if appropriate, but it's not notable enough to have it's own article. EeepEeep (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having no impact outside of its field doesn't equal non-notability per WP:N or anything else. WP:N says that it accepts reliable sources which they are. Smerdis tried to put that bias opinion in a software proposed guideline, but everyone except him turned it down. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're missing the point of my objections, but we'll see how the deletion discussion shakes out. You might want to take a look at this other current academic deletion discussion. EeepEeep (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not missing the point. I see the same comments from Miami and Smerdis, and their bias opinions never win in software AfDs. What really makes no sense from you is linking to academic people. How do you expect software to meet criteria for biographies? Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere it is needed, for notability, coverage "outside the field". Quite the opposite: one of the best advantages of an encyclopedia is to give information to the public also of things that are usually known only within a field (provided sources exist somewhere). I'd say it is hard to find something more WP:RS than scientific academic press, and therefore academic papers about a subject are a strong indication of notability -probably one of the strongest possible. Your request of "mainstream press" coverage is nonsense: what's the point in requiring (probably) bad sources when you have (most probably) good ones? --Cyclopia ^talk 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you're focused on a minor issue that's tangential to my main argument, I'd say you're missing the point. And the rest of your comments make no sense. Who's Miami? Smerdis supports keeping this article. What makes their views biased? Are there specific other software AfDs that establish relevant precedents we should consider?

I merely suggested that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) could be a useful starting point for establishing notability in a related area that lacks its own notability guidelines. If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, so we shouldn't be listing information that's only mentioned in or of interest to a scientific journal.

I don't find any of the references compelling; they merely mention that the system exists without establishing impact or importance, see Existence ≠ Notability. That's my opinion, you're entitled to disagree. EeepEeep (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? - Because you're missing the entire point of WP:N. If author X publishes 100 papers, but there is no source whatsoever on X, X is not notable, primarily because it is not verifiable: there is nothing about X that can be reliably written. If however there are 5 papers all together talking about object Y, this satisfies WP:GNG: there are several third-party sources covering the subject. Also, you have to explain me what has to do WP:NOTPAPER with scientific journals. Please, read policies and guidelines before citing them. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, the notability guideline disagrees. At the moment, WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant to software. Smerdis appears to have changed his opinions since Wikipedia:Software notability failed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, sorry, that should be WP:NOT PAPERS. I really don't see how this topic has significant coverage. Again, my opinion, and I'm allowed to express it. Clearly not everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable, and nothing in WP:N contradicts that. I've done significant research and published in the field of CS Education but have never heard of this system. On the other hand, I can name several academics who have published large numbers of papers, are frequently cited by other academics, are considered highly influential leaders in their field, and have received significant amounts of coverage in the mainstream press but don't have wikipedia pages. EeepEeep (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't see how WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point then I'm at a loss. It's clearly the closest related topic. Wikipedia has few hard-and-fast rules, but we need some guidelines here.EeepEeep (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in fact we have the guidelines we need: WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see the part above in your comment. WP:NOTPAPERS is a guideline about style, not about content. And yes, everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable by definition, per WP:GNG. The rest of your comment is satisfactorily answered by WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that there is no mention of software on the guideline so it is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, you'll notice I only said that WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point for establishing notability of other academic related topics. If software were specifically mentioned, it wouldn't be a starting point, it would be an established guideline. I'm merely suggesting applicability in the absence of an established guideline. If we just apply WP:GNG, this topic fails. EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply it, it doesn't fail. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bear in mind that guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (which putative relevance here is surrealistic, but oh well) never override WP:GNG. That is, if a subject doesn't pass a guideline but passes WP:GNG, the subject is notable. Other guidelines are to complement GNG, not to substitute it. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested WP:ACADEMIC should override WP:GNG. I merely mentioned it as a point of reference for discussing a related topic that falls into some grey areas of WP:GNG. If WP:GNG were cut-and-dried in every case the guidelines would never have been created in the first place. Your opinions don't overrule mine; the whole point of an AfD discussion is to give multiple editors a chance to express their opinions. You feel this topic is notable and gave your reasons, I don't and gave my reasons. EeepEeep (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Off the top of my head, I would have said delete because most grading software isn't notable. But this seems to have some coverage in academic papers and a book on preparing for ACM contests [54] (some of this text appears to have been recycled in other papers by the same authors) [55] (contest prep book) [56] (round-up of on-line judges on p. 7). So, it is more notable than the average grading software. Also, a distinction must be made between academic software written to illustrate some idea, and software used in academia. This falls roughly in the latter category, so it needs to be treated as any other software, and it has independent secondary coverage WP:GNG which is not just due dilligence in reporting related work in academic papers. Pcap ping 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Cars Database[edit]

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

The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it ~~shares a founder~~ was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sites don't share a founder. Rather, the merge requester said that the founders of this database were inspired by IMDb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make the connection all the more tenuous and the merge all the less plausible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There were plenty of links that could be used as third party sources, until the Nominee removed them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically, nobody cares about this stuff (I sincerely hope...) so it's not notable. Chutznik (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Being "inspired" by something notable does not equal notability. Alexa rank is a really unimpressive 61,130. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The name really rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This site passes WB:WEB IMO because it does have substantive coverage, delete votes should be made on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Polarpanda (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A near unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Gospel (book)[edit]

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

Not notable enough to merit its own article; also violates WP:NPOV to a possibly irredeemable extent Richwales (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Required reading at Regent College. Used as a reference at University of Pennsylvania. I will do some research on the subject, and work to further improve the article. AfD is not cleanup nor should AfD be a place to bring an article to cleanup claimed POV concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Meets notability requirements for books. I question NPOV claim. Are you referring to the article (don't see it) or the book itself? Turgan ^Talk 03:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Changing to speedy keep as nominator has shown no reason for deleion other than a dislike for the subject of the article, not an issue with the article itself worthy of deletion. Turgan ^Talk 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not convinced yet regarding the notability; just because two universities have courses using this book doesn't seem enough. My main concern regarding WP:NPOV is that the book is a vehicle for advancing a specific version of the Christian faith, delivering negative value judgments on numerous other faiths with which "mainstream Christianity" disagrees. If this article is salvageable, I would propose it would need to discuss the background of the author's religious views, why the author's beliefs impel him to write negatively about what he considers to be "cults", outside critical reaction to the book, etc. That would seem to point toward expanding the subject to the point that this book would be more appropriately included in Wikipedia as a source in articles about evangelical Christianity, rather than being a separate article. Richwales (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales (talk · contribs) - Your nomination itself is considered a "delete" - there is no need for you to make a duplicate "delete", with bolded formatting. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my error, no intent to confuse. I've removed the bolded "delete" tag on my comment above. I still stand by the content of what I said, though. Richwales (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a speedy keep and a month's worth of bacon for Cirt for their good work on the article? Bacon to be supplied by the nominator, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmmmmmm... AfD discussion bacon....... Cirt (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep how is this non-notable and POV? NPOV means to describe things as they are, without the influence of editorial POV - the same way we write articles about Nazism. If the subject is biased, it is okay to describe it in its original way - we are certainly not going to merge Nazism into Political ideology, are we? Blodance the Seeker 07:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, are you saying that this book's treatment of Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. is unbiased because they really are cults? Richwales (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's treatment of the book is unbiased. Whether the book itself is biased isn't relevant, otherwise Mein Kampf would be a redlink. WP:NPOV applies to articles, not the subjects of articles. Holly25 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you still don't get the point. The book may be biased. The article is not. And even if the subject of the article(i.e. the book) is biased, it doesn't automatically make the article "biased". For example, Nazism again(for a lack of better example I can think of, sorry if not appropriate) - Let's say Hitler claimed that "Aryan is the best race in the world", and now we are trying to put this into an article - in describing it, we can simply say "Hitler claims that Aryan is the best race in the world" - this is not biased. If you try to either support (e.g. saying "Aryan is the best race in the world" without attributing to him) or deny (e.g. "Hitler said that Aryan is the best race in the world, yet another nonsense") his claim, that would make the article biased. Hope the matter is clear now :) Cheers, Blodance the Seeker 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the article (in its current form) is heavily biased because it doesn't provide any clue to the reader regarding the POV nature of the book or of its thesis (namely, the tacit assumption that evangelical Christianity is true and authentic, and that other religions — even other Christian churches which diverge from the "mainstream" — are "cults" which believe and preach "another gospel"). An unbiased article would need to acknowledge the non-neutral POV of the author, the POV nature of the publisher (Zondervan), deal much more neutrally with comments like "biblical critique of the cults", address the POV nature of the book's title, etc., etc. Even if this issue can be adequately handled via a major cleanup of the existing page, I'm still not really convinced that there is a good enough argument to make this book notable and worthy of its own article (as opposed to dealing with it and similar so-called "anti-cult" or "anti-counterfeit" writings as a subsection of a more general article on evangelical or fundamentalist Protestantism). Richwales (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a read through and the article in its current form nowhere uses the word "cult" to describe these groups except in direct quotes: even the intro adds terms such as "new religious movement" in order to avoid lumping in the following list of groups under the "cult" banner; "groups" is the term used from then on. It's perfectly neutral.

An article doesn't have to include criticisms of the subject in order to be neutral, unless those criticisms can be properly sourced and their insertion doesn't give undue weight to fringe views. What would not be neutral is if someone decides the work in question is biased and arranges the article to "show" the bias, when no such allegations of bias are represented in the secondary literature. The way to add criticisms to the article is to first locate some good sources for that criticism. Holly25 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following excerpt from the back cover (as found in the book's page on Amazon.com) seems, to me, to clearly illustrate the view of the author in this book: Ruth Tucker’s overview illumines the personalities whose alleged revelations spawned historical heresies in all the major cults in the United States. She highlights important controversies within each movement as it aims for religious respectability. She pinpoints how the doctrines and practices of a dozen contemporary groups—as well as the New Age Movement—deviate from orthodox Christianity and shows how to reach out to cult members. At the very least, the current article fails WP:NPOV because it fails to even try to acknowledge the POV of the book. Also, I question the citing of this book being required reading at Regent College as being supportive of its notability, given the evangelical Protestant bias of Regent College. So I still believe this book fails the notability test — though I'm willing to concede that it may be possible to salvage its lack of NPOV via a major rewrite that does not tacitly accept a mainstream Protestant viewpoint. Richwales (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales (talk · contribs) - Perhaps you should take some time to read the above comments by Blodance and Holly25. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did read these comments — and I disagree with them — but in the interests of accomplishing something useful here, I'll tentatively agree to drop the NPOV element of my complaint in this forum, pending a good-faith effort (which I'm willing to participate in) to rectify the serious POV problems which I remain convinced exist in the current page. I still believe a page on this specific individual book is inappropriate for lack of notability, and I still favour its deletion on that basis (and/or the incorporation of its contents into a more general treatment of polemical literature within the evangelical Protestant community). Richwales (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, seems like a bit of overusage of the bolded Note formatting, over and over again... In any event, this can be discussed further at the article's talk page, but it still seems like Richwales (talk · contribs) has failed to point out any specific issues with the article itself (as opposed to his WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns with the book). Cirt (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all possible respect here, I feel my concerns go beyond "I just don't like it". I will admit that I don't particularly like this book — as you can see from my user page, I'm LDS (Mormon), and this book directly attacks my set of beliefs — but I'm not going to object to an article about this or other polemic literature as long as the material is treated in a dispassionate, objective fashion that doesn't promote or put down any particular version of faith. In any case, though — as I said — I'm willing to drop this part of my objection to the page's existence in hopes of being able to make the page better. Richwales (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the "subject of instruction at multiple ... post-graduate programs" clause at WP:BK, and the references made to it in other works. Alleged lack of NPOV isn't a deletion issue. Holly25 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several points.

I was unable just now to confirm that Another Gospel is in fact being "used as a reference at the University of Pennsylvania". The online material I could find for the cited Penn course doesn't appear to mention this book. A more comprehensive source (e.g., a complete reading list for the course?) would probably help here.
The online material for the course at Regent College does list Another Gospel — but it's buried near the end of a reading list of over 100 books — not what I would consider to fall into the category of "independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science" (note 5 at WP:BK).
If I wanted to be picky (which I really won't in this situation, but whatever), I could point out that Penn is in the USA, and Regent College is in Canada, so these two examples aren't enough to satisfy the "in any particular country" part of the cited condition at WP:BK. I would propose that the best answer to this objection would be to find more programs which make genuine, substantive use of Another Gospel.
I'm concerned that the other works cited as referring to Another Gospel may not represent exposure to a "general audience". Most of the cited works come from evangelical Protestant publishers (such as Zondervan, Moody, and Intervarsity). This isn't as bad as a fringe blog basing its claim to notability on links from other fringe blogs, but I think a conclusion of notability here ought to involve nontrivial citings of Another Gospel in a wider range of publications.

Richwales (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales (talk · contribs) - You have a tendency of responding with long posts under almost every respondent to this discussion. Perhaps it is time for both of us to step back and allow others in the community to weigh in. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be an online reference for the UPenn course, but offline sources are perfectly acceptable (they just take more work to check).

The "independent works... sufficiently significant" note is used to disqualify textbooks and books written specifically for the course. "Major works" are given as examples, not as requirements.

The "any particular country" part is, as I read it, meant to be inclusive: we can't discount courses in obscure countries out of geographical snobbery. I don't think it means "they all have to be in the same country", I don't see what sense that would make.

I'm not sure that "general exposure" is the right standard to use here: it's definitely a specialist work, so we look to how it's cited within that specialist area. I see a reference from a university press (Sydney) and use in two mainstream university courses alongside the cites in books from evangelical publishers. The Christian Research Journal review puts the book at the top of its field, and although I'm sure you'll point out problems with their neutrality, their parent organization seems to have played a big role in the "Christian countercult movement", so their endorsement does carry weight when we're considering the work's significance within that specialist field. Holly25 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't get any info if you try to click the link University of Pennsylvania... it brings you to the WP article of Penn. Noted the "RELS133"? Try search "Penn RELS133" - it's a course number. I think the creator meant to say that the book is mentioned in the course content - the link I found was dead, though, so it shall prolly get removed for unverifiable. But even if the ref is removed, it is still a widely cited work and seems to have enough notability for inclusion. For the content of the article, as long as they are properly attributed, they are fine, no real need to portrait the author and/or publisher. Check Mein Kampf - we dont really need to say "a book by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi leader and the most evil mass murderer in human history". Some of the "POV" you mentioned was not even included in the article - how in the world can they make the article POV if they are not even in the article? I'm getting puzzled... Sorry, I don't mean to be all "I R TEH JASTIS", but this seems to me to be getting more and more like a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Blodance the Seeker 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are fine, as long as they've been published in some form. Just a pain to check, especially if the only copies are in Pennsylvania... Holly25 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you look at WP:BK, it lists 5 criteria for book notability, only one has to be met to establish notability, and this book meets at least two (#1 and #4). I haven't independently verified those claims, but unless proven false, this book is notable. As for the POV problems, I agree that the book is probably POV, but the article is not. If anyone thinks the article has problems, those can be fixed without deleting. – jaksmata 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable book from Zondervan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Boys[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABLE, no appropriate CSD category. Frmatt (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G12: Copyvio - see the text accompanying the first ghit, even has the same spelling mistakes. Ivanvector (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner and a Movie (album)[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased album. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Frmatt (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn: and perhaps adding a cited mention on the artists article would be more appropriate andyzweb (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are seeing more and more AfD's for upcoming albums by notable artists, proposed for deletion just because there are not yet numerous sources available. Sometime in 2009 the old Template: future album was discontinued (see admin discussions here and here). I think a re-enstatement of that template would solve some problems if WP editors continue to create articles for near-future albums, but I guess that should be discussed elsewhere. As for the album in the present discussion, if we delete the article now it will just be re-created in a couple of months. Also, I'm not sure if citing WP:CRYSTAL is appropriate if the article has reliable sources, and I would find at least one of the sources in this article to be so. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the independent sources, only the MurderDog interview gives the album more than a cursory mention. HipHopDX and BallerStatus report the deal between Tech N9ne and Brotha Lynch Hung, and BallerStatus further quotes Lynch's Twitter page which says that this album will be his first release under the new agreement, but neither of these discuss the album per se, and so don't help establish its notability. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Amato[edit]

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

Fairly complex, questionable hoax. It would appear as if someone is attempting to re-write the history of Studio 54 with NO sources, references or corroborating evidence. In addition, the editor responsible has refused all communication, even after being blocked. "Billy Smith" in the Studio 54 article was changed to Billy Amato a few days ago. For the full timeline, please see the following links:

recent attempted edits on article Studio 54

edits performed under named account now blocked

edits of user under anonymous account (same grammatical mistakes in information)

same information added by another blocked anonymous account (grammatical mistakes and all)

There is a claim of a legal name change, for which there are no sources provided. If it is determined this information is NOT correct, this article should be deleted as a hoax. Several other similar articles attempting to introduce this information have already been deleted, including Billy Smith, Studio 54 and Billy Smith/Amato, Studio 54.OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this - Being born 1945, in 1957 he should be like 12, exactly the age for graduating from an elementary school. Considering there is unlikely to be two people who both had two surnames "Smith" and "Amato", I think they are the same person. Thus, the legal name change is true. Blodance (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also. 6 years passed and he graduates from high school. I think we can now at least say that there was a person named Billy Amato aka Billy Smith indeed. Blodance (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is his own website. He says he was "Being born and raised in Pelham Manor, New York", matching the classmate records I linked above. He also mentioned Studio 54. So, no, the article is not a hoax, as far as I can see. But I failed to establish his notability, as such, I'm going Weak Delete on this article, for failing WP:BIO. Blodance (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, Classmates.com was not a WP:RS. All legal name changes must be published, except in cases of domestic violence, so there should be a source for this information. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the situation in the US - no such requirements here. (I've !voted delete anyway, but I must say that I'm pretty convienced that they are the same person, even if the source is not reliable.) Are there any exceptions? Blodance the Seeker 09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than likely exceptions to this rule (domestic violence, witness protection), and the subject in question may have "informally" changed his name. The problem extends beyond the notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC of Billy Amato and the "alleged" name change. If the subject "Billy Smith", "Billy Smith Amato" or Billy Amato himself is editing the article (and vandalizing my userpage), we have a WP:COI. If it is not, then where is the authoring editor getting this information? There are no sources to establish notability of anything. If it is available to the general public, why can't it be produced? In addition, the existing information about Studio 54 mentions a "Billy Smith" which is a pretty common name. My concern was the production of 1) a reliable source establishing the name change from "Billy Smith" to "Billy Amato" and/or notability independent of it, as "Billy Amato"; 2) a reliable source proving Billy Amato "launched the career of Madonna" and 3) attempting to get the author of this article to communicate with the community about where this information is originating, in a way other than vandalizing my userpage and the Studio 54 article and talk page. From my perspective... beginning with the changes to the Studio 54 article, moving to the deleted articles (referenced in nomination above), and the 2 user accounts (the author, and then after being blocked, an anonymous account) being used to attempt to change who the founders of the club were, and who launched the career of Madonna (both accounts are now blocked for persistent disruptive editing), we are dealing with a persistent and concentrated hoax effort. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its Amato himself... it could be a friend of him, but if it was himself, I think he would have mentioned the name change on his personal website. In any case, let's ~~pwn~~ delete this article, unless notability is proven. Blodance the Seeker 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok guys - i am Billy Amato, i change my name back to my family name back in 1985 when i was still at Studio 54. Yes it was Billy Smith. Because names are very much a part of your heritage and family name change is very common in the USA. my web site is www.BillyAmato.com. Go to it, It is all true and I am now 65yo born in 1945. Also the infomation you have on the Studio 54 page is so wrong, well 96% of it is. I happen to be (was) Steve Rubell best friend and buddy since 1974. I lived with him and party with him durning the summers of Fire Island, NY during all of the Studio 54 days 1977-82 than we moved to East Hampton 83-85 - if you have a qustions e-mail me. Also we did launched the career of Madonna at Studio 54. There is a great story about that night when Steve Rubell walk in from the back door on west 53 Street with his friends - but that's another story i have in my book to be coming out the end of next year, I have over 1500 stories about Studio 54. - Your more than welcome to e-mail be at Billy@BillyAmato.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.17.196 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnara Silbayeva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus in this articles last AfD, but after a fairly long search, I can't find any evidence that this lowranking reality tv artist passes the notability threshold, so brought here for your consideration Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability here. Sorry. Vartanza (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Maher[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, PROD removed without the addition of sources. Unimportant politician for a minor party in a minor political spectrum (ACT Legeslative assembly only has control of the ACT, and is in effect a local government. Unknown, unimportant and left after serving one term. Viridae ^Talk 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an article of an elected MP in Australia, therefore this page has about a zero percent chance of deletion. Why you chose to embarrass yourself with an AfD I have no idea. The page will stay, mark my words. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ACT Legislative Assembly is the functional equivalent of a State Parliament except for having its legislative powers subject to Commonwealth veto (very rarely exercised). It otherwise has all the powers that a State has (indeed in some respects more, because there is no local government in the ACT). Therefore, in my view, she passes WP:POLITICIAN. Sadly, the Canberra Times does not archive its articles so it would take a hurculean effort to find a substantial degree of coverage. But at the least, the facts that she was an MLA, formed a political party, and brought down a government, can be verified: 1 and 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ACT: 2,358 km2, one (small) city and surrounds. Smallest state (Tasmania): 90,758 km2, multiple major population centres. It is the equivalent of a local government. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Viridae, you won't succeed. All federal, state, and territory MPs in Australia are noteable. How much further do you want to dig? Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not even an "all X are notable" situation. WP:POLITICIAN covers it: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, that is an absurd comparison. The ACT has a population of 350,000. A State in all but form. Would you propose getting rid of all articles about Washington DC Councillors - a similar small-area federal territory with an urban population of 600,000? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rhode Island and Prince Edward Island in other countries are comparable. Orderinchaos 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is worth keeping, fix it. If unsourced statements remain beyond the end of this AFD they will be removed. Viridae ^Talk 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First-level subnational MP - clearly passes WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - oh look, i've added 2 dud refs I don't care about. Looks like it's no longer unsourced :) Time to kiss this waste of time AfD goodbye... Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:Politician. Should be beyond dispute. Turgan ^Talk 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator was on a hiding to nothing suggesting deletion of this article, but to defend the indefensible by using the land area of the ACT to dismiss the territory's government as "local government" is just plain silly and wrong. --Canley (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - overwhelming keep. What a surprise. Should never have been AfD'd. Hole dug enough by the nominator yet? Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I have succeeded, that article was unreferenced since 2006, and a BLP. The deletion discussion prompted cleanup and sourcing. The options I wanted were delete it in its current state or fix it. Seems like a win to me. Viridae ^Talk 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bundelkhand Akikrit Party[edit]

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

This political party does not appear to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources, and in particular doesn't seem to meet the criteria for non-commercial organizations. It has been nominated for deletion (and deleted) under an alternate spelling (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundelkhand ekikrit party. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20091211/816/tnl-mayawati-demands-creation-of-bundelk.html seems to be a mention in a relaible source. The entire story seems to be devoted to a complex of related parties under various names of which this is one, as best as I can understand the politics involved. DES ^(talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.merinews.com/article/bundelkhand-government-should-not-wait-for-more-deaths/15783056.shtml seems to be another such mention. DES ^(talk) 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/99187-The-creation-Telangana-state-revives-calls-for.aspx seems to be another. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -SpacemanSpiff 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a very local party that hasn't achieved anything notable. The only time they'll ever get any attention is when the state bigwigs pay lipservice to their cause and they get a trivial mention. The Bundelkhand movement itself isn't one of the more notable statehood movements in India and therefore it can't be expected that these orgs will gain notability anytime soon. –SpacemanSpiff 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local party with no assertion of any notable achievements (such as any electoral success, even at the sub-national level). IMHO, the political equivalent of Other Stuff Exists.Tyrenon (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fillie Lyckow[edit]

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

Delete no evident claim to notability, violates BLP due to a lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; unsourced BLP. Jack Merridew 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —--Milowent (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no obvious claim to notability. Orderinchaos 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: borderline notability as per WP:notability (people). Found basic references in a few minutes [57][58][59]. Has a fairly extensive list of works. I think this artilce could be improved on. Turgan ^Talk 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article is now sufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability. Turgan found some good references. When you encounter an unreferenced BLP for an actor or actress, it's worthwhile to check http://www.imdb.com Even though IMDb is not considered a reliable source, it will give you a general idea as to how much work a given actor has done. For a Swedish actor, http://www.svenskfilmdatabas.se/ is worth checking as well. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmographies are great and all, but what kind of non-trivial coverage has this person received from reliable third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely the film databases can not just be dismissed as "trivial", when we're talking about a large number of roles? Tomas e (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement that notability in Sweden is notabilty for en.Wikipedia, and improvement will help stem systemic bias against non-English persons... even if all the sources are in Swedish. Being unsourced is a concern, yes... but if it can be addresed through regular editing it is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mostly minor roles, but a lot of them over a long career, basically agrees with Turgan. Tomas e (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now sourced Vartanza (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitech Laboratory[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. Zero hits in google news archive. The creator of the article left a message regarding notability when he contested a CSD two years ago, but as far as I can tell he argues just that the company was listed in a few directory-type lists (see Talk:Hermitech Laboratory). Pcap ping 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory entries with W3C don't establish notability. I can find no coverage about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have also searched for coverage of this company, and I've come up empty. I've also looked up its products and can't find anything significant there either. -- Atama頭 17:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small software company with a niche line of products. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article. Icewedge (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting relist Left comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermitech Laboratory. Editors there should be allowed time to respond. My concern is that absence of evidence of Google footprint for a Ukrainian org (Cyrilic alphabet) may not imply evidence of absence of notability. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their web page is only in English, so I don't even know how they spell the company name in Russian or Ukrainian. I'll delsort to the Ukrainian queue, just in case. A news search for their url failed to find anything either. Pcap ping 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As was pointed out by various parties in the discussion, the larger issues go beyond these articles. Perhaps a wider discussion ultimately will help settle those. In this particular Afd there is no clear consensus. I don't think it's too much, though, to suggest that editors might want to try to reign the list in. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chile-related topics[edit]

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

Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, Wikipedia is not a directory. Saying that it is "Chile-related" is not discriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that the fact that someone put a lot of work into something is not a valid reason to keep. However someone did and this is probably not a bad way to list articles. A person wanting to learn more about Chile would find this list useful. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what Category:Chile is for. Ivanvector (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid list/index, although they should be merged to one. No different from Wyoming's list, or any others from Category:Indexes of articles by U.S. state, or the 165 country lists in Category:Indexes of articles by country. -SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no way I could vote "keep" on this, and the only reason I don't vote "delete" is because someone worked hard on this. Normally, I would say that a list can co-exist with a category, but this one is too big to be useful, and it's actually worse than a category, which is no small feat. Believe it or not, it runs for more than 100 pages (try clicking on print, without actually printing, and you'll see the estimate), making it something like ten times as long as the Wyoming list referred to above. There's no limit to what's thrown in here (Easter Island, Buildings and structures in Chile, Observatories in Chile, Houses in Chile, Chilote mythology, Mapuche mythology, etc. etc.). Yes, someone worked very hard on this, but the nominator is right that this is an indiscriminate list (in other words, it's just a list of articles with no additional information). The list tells me that there's an animal in Chile called a culpeo, with nothing to tell me what a culpeo is. If all this serves is to tell me where to click on an article, if all this does is list a subset of articles in alphabetical order, it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the entire purpose of this Index wikiproject. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Index of Chile-related articles is no different from the 165 other country indexes or the 50 US state indexes. The list should be smerged to the index, but if we are questioning the concept of these Indexes, then it shouldn't be restricted to Chile alone. -SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice that JBSupreme had nominated two articles instead of one. I think that it's in serious need of a different format. It wouldn't run 100+ pages and it would be less unreadable if it didn't insist on a

separate

line

for

everything.

Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments from me on that piece. –SpacemanSpiff 20:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the categorisation of "Chile-related" topics is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for origininal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup the outline. Keep the index. The Outline seems to be a mixture of an Outline and an Index. Both are valid navigational page types, but mixing them together might not be ideal. There are RfCs being drafted to discuss these and related topics. There are WikiProjects associated with both, each with hundreds of items (WP:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge and the draft stage WP:WikiProject Index). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It appears that the editor(s) built these enormous, unnavigable directories by harvesting titles from Wikipedia's own category tree. It is time to put an end to this nonsense. Abductive (reasoning) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like the kind of quick reference pages I made for a Wikiproject I founded, to help potential project participants to locate stuff they would like to work on. I'm not sure that List of Chile-related topics is a candidate for main article space.--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no sourced content (WP:V) that could be merged, and the person with the changing signature makes no policy-based argument for keeping the article. Sandstein 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

María Elena Chávez Caldera[edit]

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

Sad but WP:NOT#NEWS, the few google news hits are either passing mentions, or happened around the time of her murder. No lasting notability. Delete Secret ^account 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...kinda protocol, since it's an article that I started, but still....Hit me with your best shot ,sup>hablame! 12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Female homicides in Ciudad Juárez. Although notability is not temporary, and I'm satisfied she meets WP:GNG, this is a case of WP:BIO1E. Sadly, nothing about her particular murder is noteworthy enough to set it apart from the other Ciudad Juárez murders. Ivanvector (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL possibly merge into a serial killing (this particular serial killer's serial killings) article. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said b4.....so I must again vote for keep. I mean would Barack vote for John??...certainly not! Jackass one and half Y que te importa?! 10:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an election. Do you have an argument in favour of keeping the article based on Wikipedia guidelines? For example, in this case I think a lot of editors would be satisfied if you could demonstrate that she met the general notability guideline before she was murdered. You might also explain why har specific murder is more notable than the other murders in the series, thus not failing based on WP's policy about biographies of people notable for only one event. As it is, you are effectively arguing that the article should be kept solely because you created it, which is in fact specifically against policy. I commend the work you've done on the article and think that the content should be kept, but for the reasons I pointed out above I don't think it should be a separate article, so I suggest merging. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also confusing that you changed your signature in between comments. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always vote for the articles I created to be kept because I like my work to be enjoyed for posteriority. I know it's not an election, I just used the Barack and John example as a comparison, kinda like saying "it's expected for me to vote to keep it" kinda thing.

About the signature, I always do that. I never sign the same way. I just want to make other readers and contributors laugh a bit and also remember me for my unconventionality, wild ways, wackiness and sense of humor. :)

I assume you're probably not intending this, but when you change your signature every time you make a comment, you can make it look like you're trying to stack the discussion in your favour. Actually stacking the discussion is very against policy (see WP:SOCK for one). I applaud your creativity, but please be careful. Ivanvector (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it on the button when you said I wasn't intending that. I guess I can revert to my old signature in which I wrote it like: Antonio ("Whatever")Martin...I really appreciate your applauding me, Ivan. Rare when people here praise others! Thanks and God bless you! Antonio the Fourth Jonas Brother Martin Aha? 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the other things you said, what can I say but that you're right about most of it? Megan Please Be Mine!!! Que de Que??? 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brickfilm[edit]

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

Not sure that this is notable. Topic already covered to some extent in the main Lego article. Frankie Roberto (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant 3rd party coverage; essentially a neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although if we're being really really generous a redirect to Lego might be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the current sources in the article might be poor, this is a notable topic. Please note that articles about 'brickfilms' exist in wikipedias of 8 other languages. There are 120.000 google hits and several websites devoted to the topic such as brick-cinema.com and brickfilms.com SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a form of stop motion animation that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples: [60], [61]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. A near unanimous keep after the article was improved and source during the listing period. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Kolodny[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP; was deleted out of process by User:Rdm2376. No sources to demonstrate notability. Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. It was very much deleted under due process as this violates the very spirit of BLP policy. It still does, and it was irresponsible to restore it without sourcing it immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you've clearly not even bothered to click the "find sources" links provided above. There are ample sources available, and I looked enough to confirm that notability might be confirmable before restoring and AFD'ing. Rd232 ^talk 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's gone through due process and been deleted, and you think it should be restored, shouldn't you userfy it and fix it, before you restore it to mainspace? Per WP:BLPDEL, due to the high standard that BLP articles must adhere to, the onus is on you to fix the article to demonstrate it should be kept, otherwise it must be deleted. As it stands, this is an easy speedy G4 candidate. Ivanvector (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole point was it wasn't "deleted under due process", it was a rogue deletion by an admin who was acting disruptively. I don't think even they would claim that any process was entered into at all. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there was no process, I'll withdraw my comment above. It seems User:Rdm2376 has started a campaign to mass delete stale unreferencedBLP articles without following procedure or attempting to seek consensus. This should be stopped. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that's already happening. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve Needs work but the author appears notable (checking on booksellers etc) and it should not be too difficult to source the uncontroversial claims made. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - he's a published author, a fact which is already noted in the article. Cites on the way. Frank | talk 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable physician and author. I added a review of one of his books. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering the added references. We have it confirmed once again: AfD is for cleanup. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Article has references, but not the world's most notable sexologist and most academics are published. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is published commercially...a big difference. He qualifies as notable on that basis alone, quite apart from any academic credentials. And, while notability is not inherited, it doesn't hurt to have been associated with Masters and Johnson. Frank | talk 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London - Game of children[edit]

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

These are four supposed children's games from India for which no sources are given and for which I can find none. My PRODs were removed without comment by the author, who has also declined to answer my inquiry on his talk page about sourcing. I realize one should expect it to be hard to find sources about backyard games in India, but unfortunately we need to have them. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all four games are regional variants and might be known by different names in different states. I have known (by other names) and played three of them myself. But reliable sources would be difficult to find. I think number of phd thesis exist for such games. But unpublished dissertations won't meet RS standards. Will have to look for regional language books.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three into an article called Traditional Indian children's games. We have an entire Category:Children's games that would be more accurately called "Games that Wikipedians played while growing up in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia". However, there does need to be sourcing regarding the existence of these games. An article based on one's childhood memories is only original research. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are better known games that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. EeepEeep (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete them all! Per nom andyzweb (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like to pre-emptively quash any unfair claims of WP:BIAS -- if you have sources, show them. Put up or shut up. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No possible way to verify. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mansford. Title says it all. Merge seems like a good idea Buggie111 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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