Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 30

< 29 September	1 October >

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. JodyB_talk 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AddonFox[edit]

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

I found zero sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is indeed no significant coverage, and this browser extension isn't notable in any way, shape, or form. KaySL ^talk 23:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable in any way. Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Firefox main article. He iro 03:27, 2 October 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 (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) by JamesBWatson (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanib bhat[edit]

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

Prod removed by author, no evidence that this person is notable. Only reference is a facebook page. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Clearly non-notable and self-promotional. Autumnalmonk (talk) 23:59, 30 September 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 clear vandalism. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hammerhead Wrasse[edit]

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

Article is obviously a hoax. No such species appears in any search engine or database, the taxonomy given is nonsensical, as is the description ("head of a hammerhead shark and body of a wrasse"). Yzx (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a clear hoax. If a new animal was disovered over a month ago then this wouldn't occur. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:56, 30 September 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. JodyB_talk 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sniagrab[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the GNG guidelines. This is a marketing campaign with only one mention in Google News and so fails to meet the "significant impact" that would be required to go beyond the press releases and their derivative advertorials to be expected with any such media campaign. Fæ (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eteled per nom, absolutely no sources. So trivial it doesn't warrant a redirect to The Sports Authority. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. TPH, I hope "delete" backwards doesn't mean keep. - Hydroxonium (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't think it's notable. Maybe copy a few words into Sports Authority, but that's it.bobrayner (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being notable. Figureofnine (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not otherwise meet notablity guidelines. JodyB_talk 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Uncles[edit]

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

The article fails to make a case against the guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. I find no articles in Google News and general searching shows the normal press coverage for political candidates but not the significant press coverage required. Fæ (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as much coverage as one would normally expect of a Parliamentary candidate, but WP:POLITICIAN says that's not enough. Might warrant a mention in English Democrats at a push. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This seems nothing more than a vanity page, this man has done nothing for politics in England nor in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishman truth seeker (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He warrants a mention within the article on the English Democrats, but there is no reason at all why he warrants an entry of his own. The fact that it appears he introduced the page himself says enough about this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artfish3 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record - I did not personally start this article - however I have added further information if someone wants to format it - I am easy as to whether this entry is kept or deleted - but I did not start it !!!!! 81.2.97.151 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Uncles 81.2.97.151 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Clearly NN. A failed candidate for a very minor political party. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, I am pleased to hear that this is biography not autobiography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 3 October 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) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Austwick[edit]

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

Cricketer non-notable per WP:CRIC. It states that for a cricketer to be notable he has to have played first-class, List-A or Twenty20 matches. Austwick plays Minor Counties cricket, which per WP:CRIC are non-notable matches as they don't hold any of the above statuses, therefore Austwick is a non-notable cricketer. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No problem with that. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm convinced VASterling (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find passing mentions in match reports and scorecards. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:PROF - the subject has named professorship, many citations, major awards, etc. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. Russell Neuman[edit]

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

The resume linked from the article persuaded me that this is a non-notable person, one of millions of college faculty. I might be wrong, you decide East of Borschov 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives cites of 645, 431, 340... to give an h index of 19, so passes WP:ProfC#1. He also holds a named chair so passesWP:ProfC#5. Nominator is advised to study WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per Xxanthippe. Named chair at the University Michigan - satisfies WP:ProfC#5. I have added refs to several academic awards to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not certain whether the awards rise to the level of passing WP:PROF but the named chair and the citation record certainly both do, and thanks to Nsk92 this is now adequately sourced for its current content. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS shows ~300 citations for simple query of WR Neuman, but could be more with a more sophisticated search. This is an easy pass on PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 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 nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Madise[edit]

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

No sources given for over a year, never played profesionally, and no other assertion of notability is given. Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He played a full season in the NFL. See profile. Also the Google news link above pulls 500 hits, including a number of articles about him. Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, e.g., the following google news articles on Madise: (1) Broncos sign receiver Adrian Madise to five-year deal, (2) Madise gets suspended ; NFL punishes wide receiver for four games, (3) MADISE BLAMES VITAMIN, (4) More involvement set for rookie WR Madise, (5) Madise runs wild for a TD, (6) Madise fighting for a roster spot, (7) TCU receiver catches a break, runs with it: Madise's clutch grabs in late season helped deliver Frogs to bowl, (8) Madise catching on with help from Smith, (9) Madise matters to final roster Broncos receiver hit with NFL suspension, affecting the team's 53-player look as Sunday's opener nears, (10) BRONCOS GET TCU RECEIVER IN FOLD, (11) Madise last standing for No. 5 wideout spot, (12) WR Madise injured. Cbl62 (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn OOOPS! Thanks for the research! Someone please close this out under either "withdrawn" or "snow" - take your pick. (P.S. Article looks way better)--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:31, 1 October 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) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Gordon[edit]

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

Not notable in any way. Only source is a personal website. Nothing AT ALL on Gnews or Gbooks. Redirect declined twice by an editor who thinks I'm "blanking things on a whim." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG. Yoenit (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 2 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Elk[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable New Age practitioner. The article itself appears solely promotional in nature; does not establish the notability of subject in any way and appears to be supported in terms of references only by self published websites and a single interview in a now defunct online arts magazine. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion, not to be confused with the very notable Black Elk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion of an entirely non-notable person. Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE-non notable self promotion. He iro 03:29, 2 October 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 CSD A9. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light Up This World[edit]

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

Article provides no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability of this (unreleased) album. A quick search turns up no independent reliable sources that could be used to reference the statements in this article. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A9 - musical recording by a non-notable artist or band. andy (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 October 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 nomination withdrawn. No other deletes other than nominator. The article has been improved, but needs more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service-orientation[edit]

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

Patent nonsense:

Service-orientation is the philosophical process of processes becoming more service-oriented.

So tell me, class, what have we learned?

a design paradigm that specifies the creation of automation logic in the form of services....
Service-orientation has continued to receive increased recognition as an important part of the service-oriented computing landscape and a valid design approach to achieving service-oriented architecture....

This might be a notable idea. It seems to be some kind of "design paradigm" promoted by the high chiefs of Microsoft; the article quotes Don Box and Paul Allen. Still, the article leaves me wondering whether there's any actual subject to be described by the title. The attempts at defining the topic are vague lists of glittering generalities, which always creates the impression that someone is selling something, or at least attempting to promote a neologism devised for promotional purposes without real meaning. The article itself helpfully acknowledges that Due to the range of interpretations given to the notion of SOA, it is not always clear what is exactly being discussed. This would appear to be a vague buzzword without a topic to be about, and even Microsoft's buzzwords shouldn't get a free ride just for being from Microsoft.

I tagged this for multiple issues, essentially for being nonsensical and unreadable. "Let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume

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

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, or merge into Service-oriented architecture. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. There's something going on under the multiple layers of buzzword abstraction, though it's not entirely clear. Looking at this version of the article, it's clear there's something going on, because there are multiple books about it, published by a real publisher (Prentice Hall). Argyriou (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service-oriented architecture isn't exactly a model article yet, either, but it's far clearer than this. Both would appear to be about computing and the design of interfaces. I could live with a smerge and redirect, with perhaps the entire text now here moved to talk there. Odd that the Erl references were removed, but Erl and Microsoft would appear to be the main sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need this. Even if we delete this version (WHY?!) we'd only have to recreate it again tomorrow. This is currently a _huge_ topic in IT (and the real world, not just M$), almost universally misunderstood and there's a painful need for good explanatory articles on it. Nor is it the same thing as SOA, so merging is inappropriate. Orientation is the re-engineering of a business around service-based IT products, so as to make use of it. SOA is how to structure IT products to offer these services that you're going to need. Note incidentally that Paul Allen's book's title is "Service Orientation", not "SOA", if you're looking for credible sources for the term itself. Paul Allen incidentally is the one from CA, not the other one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Orientation is the re-engineering of a business around the IT products, so as to make use of it. SOA is how to structure IT products to offer these services that you're going to need. I learned more from this statement than I did from any of the text in the article, for all its name dropping. It still seems to me like two sides of the same coin, though. Like I said, notability is not the issue, and if the article were intelligible enough to give an inkling about what the underlying subject was about, I'd try to restate what I thought it was saying more plainly. If it's a "huge topic" that nobody understands, and this is a representative attempt at an explanatory article, is there really a "topic" behind the hype? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Maybe I should try writing articles some time... This AfD is very like the one on Oracle Enterprise Service Bus: they're articles written in 2007 about a topic that is just about about gaining recognition, yet still not understanding, today in 2010. No wonder they're unclear - back when they were written, almost no-one understood what they were about. I've spent the last two years of my working life pretty much entirely trying to learn what they are, then communicate this to manglement (well-known IT company, still doesn't recognise the difference between web services and SOA).

If Wikipedia worked, it would be offering a good article here: clear, accessible, objective and free of vendor or platform bias. 'This is what we're here for. If we can't deliver on a topic this important, maybe it's time to give up and stick to just Pokemon? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: if this is an important subject, we ought to have an informative and intelligible article about it. This article is not that, not in its current form. It reminds me of Molière's medical professor who claimed that opium puts people to sleep because it has a "dormitive virtue". That powerful explanation is on the same level as Service-orientation has continued to receive increased recognition as an important part of the service-oriented computing landscape and a valid design approach to achieving service-oriented architecture.... and Service-orientation is the philosophical process of processes becoming more service-oriented. Text like this is not an appropriate response to the challenge of a blank page. If we could get a paragraph or two explaining what the subject is and why it is important, I'd be happy to withdraw this. Without that, I think we'd be better of with no article than with this article; a redlink is an invitation to write something, after all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this: Why should I spend my time writing a good article on a valuable topic when some teenage ~~redacted~~ is going to delete it 15 minutes later, just because they've never heard of it? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of that teenager as your target audience, and then you will know if you have succeeded at writing a good article. By all means, introduce technical detail; but begin by explaining, in plain and concrete words that your teenager will probably understand, what technical or historic significance the subject has, and why the topic is in fact important. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 2 October 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) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegan the Poet[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. ~~Article has some minor secondary sources that establish that the guy exists, writes poetry, and has performed at poetry events~~After checking sources and deleting those that don't actually mention him, sourcing is minimal - a couple of brief entries in pages that probably wouldn't be considered RSs, and a ref to 1992 Vanity Fair (print edition) that I'm not able to check. On Googling I can't find anything to suggest that he meets any of the notability criteria suggested under WP:CREATIVE. Some of the sources cited don't even mention him.

Article also has tone issues and appears to be the subject of an edit war involving one of the subject's ex-es, but those could be fixed if we had anything substantial by way of RSes. GenericBob (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. It's a miracle for the ages this article has survived this long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seconded here. This is an excellent example of why WP has a deletion policy in the first place. --tgeller (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this article does not deserve its own Wiki entry; it's simply a biography for a minor poet who has not made "significant contributions or theories" per the Wikipedia guidelines and publishes only to a severely limited audience. His source links do not mention him and are simply links to venues and clubs that any person would put on their facebook page. The one quote that allegedly mentions him in the NY Times isn't even confirmable that he is the same Finnegan who posted this entry. He deserves a user entry, but not a general wiki entry-- Paul W 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Is there any evidence that his collections were actually published by someone other than himself? If real publishers had published that many of his collections, he might be notable. But if that's all self-published (or vanity-press published), it's pretty much evidence that he's not notable. Argyriou (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article they're by "Dark Star Crew", which is owned and run by Finnegan himself, and thus self-published. Googling though yields nothing at all on the supposed books, so for all we know they might be imaginary or xerox sheets handed out to friends. Given that the article implies he's been active as a poet for two decades it's shocking how little verifiable info there is on the guy, even mere existance is hard to truly verify. One might even consider it a hoax or at the very least extreme self-exaggeration. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad for not being a better wikipedia editor and citing them correctly, am attempting to get the correct information on them now. Just FYI the items listed are NOT self-published or vanity-press published. They are all from LGBT/Progressive Small-press, one group was under the imprint of an LGBT Non-profit and two of them were published in Europe. But what makes it dificult is that none of them have an on-line edition. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A self-promotion piece by a self-styled poet who lacks notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious self-promotion of a non-notable person. Google yields only a range of other attempts at self-promotion, certainly no notable mentions. All his "published" works (if they even exist) appear to be highly dubious self-publishing attempts without any mention from independent sources. His "performances" are mostly a list of venues and appear to be of the quality of "open mic" nights/events where anyone can perform. There is absolutely no argument for this person's notability except perhaps from his own narcissism. Autumnalmonk (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This almost reads more like a press release than a Wiki entry. Cassius235 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly self-puffery from a non-notable self-styled "personality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakiwiboid (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, I am the original author and occasionally stop by to edit/update this article. Over the years I have been attempting to steadily build up a more complete library of articles about various subjects relating to the bisexual community, a very under-represented subject. This piece is one of these articles.

This is a writer/performance artist who is notable within the (primarily) English-speaking LGBT/Bisexual community. Over the years he has been well thought of enough to be mentioned in the in the New York Times, have pieces done on him Vanity Fair, a major Village Voice piece, a (Dutch) Photo-essay as well as to have continuous mention in publications directed at the LGBT Community. However one of the reasons I continue to stop by this page is I keep finding vandalism, as well as deletions of primary sources along with fairly unique reasoning (for example "no way to tell if it is this particular individual?" Well, suppose same could be said about any number of sources . . .).

Additionally, with greatest respect, I am a trifle curious as to how the person who proposed the deletion knows so much about the personal life of the subject that he feels free to suggest that there is an edit war with "one of the subject's ex-es"? I have never seen any mention of this. Tediously checking back I see comments that might, if you wished to analyze vandalism, maybe possibly be attributed to a jealous professional rival. So I must wonder how he might have come by this knowledge. I do know that all LGBT articles are subject to a great deal of malicious vandalism so it seems curious that in this case that a someone might have some undocumented inside info in this particular case. CyntWorkStuff (talk)

Happy to satisfy your curiosity - the article links to the subject's LiveJournal, which discusses said edit war in some detail. I quote (with apologies for the language): "Finnegan here. Still glowing richly with the vital, crucial, utter banishment of Miguel. Finally, the worthless toe-rag was scared away from vandalizing my Wikipedia Page! ... Bloody Hell, the sleazy brainless bitch wouldnt go away or stop fucking with me for a whole year after it was long vividly clear that we were history, and had broken up." He also mentions it at [1][2] and quite possibly elsewhere.

You say he is "well thought of enough to be mentioned in the New York Times" - are you referring to this article, which features a one-sentence soundbite from a teenager named Finnegan? Even assuming it's the same Finnegan, that's a far cry from notability. --GenericBob (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering me and Oh. I didn't know that was there. But for what it is worth I also think that is an (unfounded) supposition. A variety of the same vandalism has been going on for a while (longer than that time period) and I'd guess it is a (or several?) professional rival from the wording. Just as a side note, that (complaining/defacing wikipedia articles) of rivals turns out to be a more common happening than one might suppose.

Also yes, it is the same Finnegan (the now confused subject of the article has been induced to place a note onto the talk page of the main article to attest to that). Additionally, either that article or another one from the NY Times from back in the "print" days also had him as the primary photo subject to go with the article, but I don't know how to properly footnote that.

And actually that is quite a bit of the problem with the article IMHO. I am not sure how to cite things that are (a) not on-line (b) small press/non-profit (c) overseas, for example the "Voices from The Other Side" is a multi-year set put out by some subset of NYC's LGBT Community Center. So some of the "notability" stuff may just be a combination of some really slipshod editing and additions over the years as well as my initial add where I wasn't ever clear on how to cite things I couldn't link to. CyntWorkStuff (talk)

Citation templates might be useful for citing off-line sources. The catch with small-press sources is that they don't always satisfy WP:N and/or WP:V (depending on whether they're being used to establish notability of a subject, or to back up a particular statement of fact). It's particularly an issue with biographies of living people. --GenericBob (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep That this is even happening really makes my blood boil. This is a performance artist and poet which is already not a real high-profile gig like say someone real important who much like a trained seal bounces a soccer ball on their head or something. But this guy is know and performs in many countries on three continents (America, Europe Australia) for a long time. Have YOU been part of the Next Wave Festival at BAM? Do YOU have write-ups in the NY Times, the Village Voice, Vanity Fair and other places? No? Well he does. And this deleting footnotes thing because you are "not sure if it's the same person" and announcing that only on-line credits and articles are "acceptable" to establish notability? SMH I have never even heard of someone coming up with those excuses on here. Giving you "A" for creativity on those ideas, yo.

comment I am getting very sick of the constant picking at and vandalism of any and all LGBT entries on here. And then we have the extra added attraction of people, even those who you think should know better, trying to delete anything and everything that has the word bisexual on it. I suggest that people go read Bisexual erasure and think about it. Plus I am really trying hard to assume good faith but can't help but notice that this is a frequently vandalized article AND that more than the usual number of people on here who are slavering for deletion have newly minted accounts. Not saying I can prove anything but if the sock fits . . . BiAndBi (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please read more carefully before making accusations of bad faith.

(1) Nobody has stated that offline sources are unacceptable - in fact I specifically offered info on how to cite them!

(2) "More than the usual number of people on here who are slavering for deletion have newly minted accounts" - looking at edit histories, I find precisely one account that fits that description. Going by the edit histories, the other 'delete' comments come from accounts dating back to 2004 (x3), 2005 (x2), 2006, 2009 (x2) and July this year, so this accusation doesn't hold up. But if you still believe anybody here is abusing socks, you have the option of filing an investigation request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.

As to the timing of the deletion discussion: the article came to my attention as a consequence of this post by Finnegan. Somebody who saw it mentioned that he had a Wikipedia page, I checked it out, and felt it didn't meet notability standards, so I nominated it. Maybe that post was triggered by the vandalism, maybe the timing is a coincidence - you'd have to ask Finnegan that.

(3) The only NY Times link provided in the article was one that briefly quotes a teenager named "Finnegan". It was not an article about him; even if we were to suppose that "shares part of the name, same city, same sexual orientation" is sufficient to meet WP:V, it doesn't establish notability. Of the other sources offered in the article, one no longer exists and another turned out not to mention him at all. Of the four sources that remain, three are brief entries in 'directory' style pages. The only one that I haven't been able to check is a reference to a 1992 Vanity Fair article.

On Googling "finnegan the poet", the first few hits are: Finnegan's webpage, his Wikipedia page and related material, one brief profile, a passing mention to an open-mic performance, and a bunch of Wikipedia mirror sites. A BLP needs to establish notability and it needs enough reliable sources to offer a balanced perspective on the subject - this article doesn't have either. Without solid sources, we're left with vandalism on the one side, and Finnegan's review of his own performances on the other... that's not the standard WP is trying to achieve. --GenericBob (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Peace people, please. The editor did actually say that they indeed "Assumed good faith" so why not take them at their word, since that is way you wish to be taken too? You must realize that items with the topic of bisexuality are continually under attack and marked for deletion (BiNet USA, Kyle Schickner, Celebrate Bisexuality Day to name just three of many examples) many times by various troll-ish forces, and in the words of one wikipedia editor "the bisexual community is the poor bastard child of the gay rights community -- that is, they get respect neither from the straight community nor from the gay community -- for various reasons. Ergo, their size and reach as determined by Google and Alexa (admittedly low) is not necessarily reflective of their notability, longevity, and importance". So after a while this tends to make editors concerned with this topic jumpy and suspicious. IMHO the reason this doesn't look notable is in many ways due to confusion on how to properly cite an article which for whatever reason just doesn't have a lot of on-line references but does have some solid hard-copy ones. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BiandBi said that s/he was "trying to assume good faith". S/he then went on to make broad-brush allegations of sockpuppetry, vandalism, biphobia and throw around remarks like "never even heard of someone coming up with these excuses... giving you an A for creativity", none of which are compatible with AGF. I appreciate that a lot of bi-related articles are under attack - I encountered similar issues back when I worked on other sexuality-related articles, under a different account* - but that does not mean every challenge to a bi-related article should be interpreted as biphobia. It's particularly inappropriate when at least one of the 'delete' commenters is themselves bisexual.

I agree that the media have their coverage biases (+crime, ++sport, -creative/intellectual, -bi, etc etc) so if we're looking at Google hits to establish notability, I would certainly give more leeway to an article of this sort than to the footballer of the week. Problem is, even for systematically undercovered fields, we still need to set the bar somewhere. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a promo vehicle for every self-published poet, unpublished novelist, and garage band in existence, which is not somewhere I want to go.

It's more problematic with a BLP because we need enough sources to provide balanced coverage. We don't accept poorly-cited negative material for good and obvious reasons, and if we want a balanced article that means we shouldn't be accepting poorly-cited positive material either. When I read a bio, one of the first things I want to know is "what makes this person stand out?" If I'm reading about a poet, that might translate to - does he draw large audiences? Has he influenced the way other poets write? Has he won awards for his work? Have reviewers singled him out for favourable comment?

At present, all I've seen about that is anonymous, uncited criticism on one hand (reverted, as it ought to be) and, on the other, Finnegan's uncited report of his own 'huge success' and another anonymous uncited report that "horrible in-house politics" brought a gig to an untimely end. Both of those also need to be removed if the article survives the deletion process; I would have done it already, but I'm getting tired of being accused of biphobia/racism/vandalism/whatever, so I'm holding off to see whether that process makes it a moot point. Strip out the uncited subjective material, and what's left boils down to "he's published books, travelled around giving performances, and shown up to a lot of open-mikes" - which anybody can do if they have the money for self-publishing and airline tickets. The article doesn't tell us whether anybody has bought those books or hung around to listen to his performances, much less what they thought of it. In a better world maybe the media would have different priorities and it'd be easier to find cites for that sort of thing, but we have to work with what we have.

*Created for privacy reasons, used in accordance with WP:SOCK and declared to the appropriate folk... in case anybody was wondering. --GenericBob (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account to participate in this discussion (and I apologize in advance if I'm not using the markup properly), but I'm not a sock. I'm happy to provide any details of who I am, in private. I haven't had communication with Finnegan in years. I'd just like to participate in making sure at least the basic facts are clear, and I leave it to others to decide whether he's "notable" or not.

I knew Finnegan back in the 90's. I can attest that the NY Times article's Finnegan is indeed this same Finnegan. The print version of that article included a picture of him. I also remember reading a print version of Sassy (the teenage girl mag) which was about the Dark Star Crew, finnegan's poetry in performance group at the time. Again, it included a picture of the group. That would have been around 1993. I attended quite a few Dark Star Crew performances at NYC venues. I would describe Finnegan as someone who was widely known in the poetry circles of NYC in the nineties when I was there. And I can also attest to the chapbooks put out by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Center of NYC -- I have several of them still sitting on my bookshelves! They were not self-published, they were published by the center. Maybe someone from there can confirm this? http://www.gaycenter.org/

Again, I have no opinion about whether he's notable or not since the Wiki guidelines on that seem vague (what's "significant"?) and I'm not a Wiki participant (until now). I just wated to attest that some of the sources being questioned do indeed exist as I have seen and heard them with my own eyes and hears.

Knewfinneganbackwhen (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC) knewfinneganbackwhen[reply]

Tweaked the indents on your comment to align it (hope you don't mind, and apologies in advance if you do :-)

I can't speak for other editors, but I would be a lot happier about the article if it was based on published sources of that sort (and the unsourced material trimmed). There might still be some argument about notability, but at least we'd be able to put it on a solid foundation. (BTW, has his profile lowered since the '90s? Seems like there are a lot more sources from the '90s than there are from the last 10 years, which might explain why I couldn't find much online.)

One thing Wikipedia can't use as a source is personal testimony from editors. It's annoying sometimes but there are good reasons for it; although it makes it harder to add fact, it also makes it a lot harder on vandals and attention-seekers. (As an example, over on Talk:Peter Foster a few months back we had one editor trying to impersonate a Daily Mail journalist who had close personal knowledge of the subject. It's not always possible to catch those people, which is why the verifiability policy essentially says that none of us can be trusted; we have to provide independent verification of claims we make.)

In the case of the NYT article, this means that we can't go on an editor's say-so that the subject (or that editor) is the same Finnegan. But I think there's a way to sidestep the issue on this occasion - WP:SELFPUB states that we can use people as sources on themselves in certain limited circumstances. If the only purpose of this cite is to establish where he went to school, that would qualify, so we can just cite it to his website (as I've now done). --GenericBob (talk) 12:53, 6 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Taylor (Eurovision)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP that claims to have entered a few TV shows, but not actually won or released a single or anything actually notable. The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have entered several talent shows but never did well enough in any of them to warrant an article. Last appearance was supposedly in 2006, so I wouldn't hold my breath for any additional notability within the immediate future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and most likely no chance of becoming notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 October 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) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okanicon[edit]

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

He's not important enough to be in the article on the Lenape, so he's definitely not important enough to have his own article. Not to mention I have no idea what he did as chief. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What event would that be? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This: "chief of the Lenape tribe in New Jersey". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a position, not an event. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE not notable, only one small source provided, and very unlikely to ever be any others to find, as he supposedly lived almost 400yrs ago. He iro 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why the nominator thinks that the subject is "not important enough to be in the article on the Lenape". His lack of a mention in that article simply means that it is one of our >3 million imperfect articles. The Google Books search linked at the top of this discussion shows that several authors have reported Okanicon's views on alcohol,[3][4][5][6] and that he was the English Quaker settlers' favourite chief.[7] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the Lenape page is a well-developed and rather complete article. If Okanicon had an important role in the history of this tribe, I would expect that one of the contributers would have at least mentioned him. But his name doesn't even appear anywhere on the page. This suggests (but doesn't state with certainty) that his role in the tribe wasn't all that significant. However, the sources you have presented certainly suggest otherwise, and it sounds like this article has potential. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call that article "rather complete", as it doesn't mention even one pre-1700 Lenape by name, so by your logic nobody before Teedyuscung played any significant role in the tribe. We shouldn't let any shortcomings of other Wikipedia articles cloud our judgement about the notability or otherwise of this article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 2 October 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. G7 Courcelles 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broomhurst Hall[edit]

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

I created this back in March, but I feel it no longer meets notability requirements. Only sources found are either primary (published by the university) or trivial mentions in university guides and such. Aiken (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't even redirect this to the college article. It's just a building, and not an especially old or interesting one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 As you are the creator and only content contributor (aside from a few tags), this can be deleted under CSD criteria G7: Author requests deletion. I have applied the tag. Yoenit (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom- who can ask for G7. --Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a bit weird. Criteria do not say that the author has to request a G7 himself, just that he has to request deletion explicitly (or blank the page). Nominating for AFD is obviously a deletion request. Reapplying the G7 tag with a link to the AFD nomination out of curiosity. Yoenit (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Unicorn[edit]

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

contested prod of a non-notable band. The creator dumped a load of references in the article as a response to my prod, and claimed it meets #1 and #7 of WP:BAND on my talkpage. I disagree as none of the sources appear reliable and find his claim that it meet #7 as "a prominent representation of a notable style (geek rock). More importantly it is one of the first geek “girl group” productions to see wide release, making it a seminal work of an emerging style" questionable. Please note Geek and Gamer Girls Song and Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song are also at AFD. Yoenit (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:BAND. I would have speedied this if I'd found it first, honestly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you are still free to speedy it if you want, this AFD will just get closed earlier. However, the claim that the song is signficant makes this an invalid A7 as far as I can see. Yoenit (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see why the creator saw it as a band (after all, their first project was a parody music video), but I believe they intend to do other projects as well and, as such, fall under WP:WEB. They are certainly notable (at least in their first and only project so far), as has been noted by the many references and reviews (such as from Wired.com, Geek.com, and MSNBC.com). --V2Blast (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references were a friggin' mess and the article made no indication of actual notability, so I cleaned all that up - like don't list every blog that rambles about it. Notability information is included now. ScarletPepper (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 01:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I owe you bigtime for this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs)
Keep. I think the MSNBC and Wired.com articles pretty much knock the non-notability argument out. Shisumo (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe most of the references now in the article are not reliable sources (for example, who is the guy blogging on ign?) I think it is clear this "group" meets WP:WEB and article improvement is needed, not deletion. I therefore withdraw my nomination. (Note: this does not end the AFD, there is still a delete vote). Yoenit (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) NorthernDragon (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geek and Gamer Girls Song[edit]

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

contested prod of a non-notable song. The creator dumped a load of references in the article as a response to my prod, but with a possible exception of a wired article [8] none of them appear to be reliable sources. Fails wp:NSONG. Please note Team Unicorn and Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song are also at AFD. Yoenit (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NSONG. Even the youtube hit count isn't up to much, so this doesn't get to sneak by on the claim that it's famous on youtube or whatever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has several reliable sources supporting its notability... (StarWars.com, MTV.com, Wired.com, MSNBC.com, Geek.com, IGN, etc.) As such, I feel it fulfills the necessary criteria to be considered notable (though it could use some adding to). --V2Blast (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references were a friggin' mess and the article made no indication of actual notability, so I cleaned all that up - like don't list every blog that rambles about it. Notability information is included now. ScarletPepper (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 01:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I owe you bigtime for this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs)
Comment: Northern Dragon has merged Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song into this article. unfortunately it doesn't really improve the article, but it gives us something to work on. Yoenit (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe most of the references now in the article are not reliable sources (for example, who is the guy blogging on ign?) I think it is clear this song is indeed notable and article improvement is needed, not deletion. I therefore withdraw my nomination. (Note: this does not end the AFD, there is still a delete vote) Yoenit (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) NorthernDragon (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010

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

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

The result was merge to Nicolae Densuşianu. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conquest of the Italian Peninsula by the Carpatho - Danubians[edit]

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

Appears to be some kind of fringe theory about the origin of Old Latin. Article is completely unreferenced, and I can't find any sources that prove that this theory even exists, no less that it is notable. SnottyWong ^comment 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And the original was in such poor English that I had to discard almost all of it, not being able to be sure what was intended. That being said, being a fringe theory (which I agree it apparently is) does not necessarily mean that it is not a notable fringe theory. There is a link to Nicolae Densuşianu (who I gather is the progenitor of the theory) where it basically implies "Densuşianu's unlearned vaporings were dismissed out of hand by actual experts". However, there is also this: "Part of Densuşianu's thesis was adopted by several official historians during the late years of Nicolae Ceauşescu's communist regime, serving as inspiration for a new discourse, one autarkic and nationalist in tone", and that is referenced, albeit to an offline book in Romanian. So I am at a loss to say if there is the germ of a worthwhile article here, but I am inclined to say that there might be. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just provide some sources instead of writing a lengthy response. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.... I'm not sure how to answer that. Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely incomprehensible in its current condition, the title makes no sense with its limited text, and there's no evidence at all that this is a theory even remotely taken seriously by the fringe theorists, let alone the rest of us.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dacian language#In Romanian culture which has more on this topic. I have added some citations as they seemed easy to find and explain the matter well. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either into Dacian language#In Romanian culture or Protochronism. Wherever the Indo-European languages originated, I don't think there's much doubt that, at some time, they came into Italy from parts east, probably somewhere in the Balkans. Apparently the hypothesis that Rome was founded by Dacians, rather than Dacia being settled by Romans, is something of a big deal in Romanian nationalism. This may be a fringe theory; it is a notable fringe theory, but probably ought to be treated in a single article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two cites to a single scholar does not notability make. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nicolae Densuşianu if it's only his theory then no need for two articles giving the same material. I also don't see it being claimed that they "conquered" Italy, just settled there. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nicolae Densuşianu, what is usable anyway, still not convinced of any kind of notability, even fringe. He iro 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nicolae Densuşianu. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be used to Nicolae Densuşianu, even if I'm not certain it warrants a mention even there.Aldux (talk) 00:59, 3 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of games played in the Aviva Stadium[edit]

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

The article currently fails WP:GNG with no sources provided. However, my main concern is do we even need such an article. Is a list of games played at a particular stadium a notable topic to be covered by an encyclopedia. These games are well covered in the relevant articles on the leagues/competitions/cups/tournaments that the matches were part of. Why do we need to duplicate this information as a list of fixtures played at a particular venue? See WP:NOTSTATS. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics, the article has no/little explanatory text. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a collection of any conceivable information. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure listcruft. Giant Snowman 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:42, 4 October 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) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic University of America and The Knights of Columbus[edit]

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

I've never been quite sure why this relationship is considered notable enough to have its own article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any relevant (and referenced!) material into the two subject articles. This present article contains a great deal of material, all of it lacking references, that is not directly related to the title subject. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intramural trivia. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. If merged, a redirect will need to be left behind for attribution purposes, on the second !vote, whether or not something is "trivia" is kind of subjective. A little more input here would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no referenced material here so there is no reason to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 1 October 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) Jmundo (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learned pigs & fireproof women[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:BK. Searching Google News, Google Books and generally there appears to be little chance that the criteria for notability will be addressed in the near future. PROD removed, hence upgrade to AfD. Fæ (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Ricky Jay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Passes WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. First of all: I own this book. I love this book. It's also a collector's item to some extent, although not nearly as much as Jay's book about using cards as weapons. I think it might just squeak by WP:BK in that it was adapted to a TV special (with Steve Martin!). I'll leave it to the community to decide whether that's enough or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 minutes before it was nom'ed? On a new editor's very first edits? How WP:BITEY can we get! How about doing something positive to improve the article, rather than trying to stomp new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weakly, possibly--but in this Google book search there is a number of interesting hits, including this one. The book is cited and referred to often enough; I don't doubt that reviews can be found as well (though those don't show up so easily with a slightly older book, of course). Drmies (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick browse soon turns up a statement that "Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women was named a "notable book of the year" by the New York Times" and this then leads me to a good review which establishes notability. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to be bitey, Colonel. I think Fae knows that guideline and I will assume good faith that they followed it; so should you. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good source, happy to see a speedy keep on that basis. Fæ (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: how about I add in some more information regarding the review found by the Colonel and mention the televison show adaptation? Would that be helpful? Azeban (talk)

Sure, go for it. There's no chance now that your article will be deleted so you can proceed without worrying about that. I have started a talk page for the article which contains links to sources and that will help you find more. Look at articles about other books for ideas on how to structure and format this one. And welcome to Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is possible to find plenty of reviews in the reliable media. Clearly a notable book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:41, 3 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maine West High School Football[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable, unencyclopedic and no context. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. A page of statistics for a high school football team would not be not a suitable encyclopaedia article even if there were sources, which there aren't. This is using Wikipedia as a free web host for the school's football team. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability for the team, just a bunch of stats. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually statisics for all sorts of information on wikipedia, and there are sources and multipule references courtesy of the Maine West Alumni Association which holds the records for the high school since its opening in 1959 along with the records of Maine North high school. Also notability will be added as the page was just created, there are thousands of pages that are not near completion and thay are not nominated for deletion. 207.246.169.110 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete for the reasons listed above. ThatOneGuy 207-67 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, unencyclopedic. Hairhorn (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - High school football teams are not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why the hell does everyone care about deleting this so much? just let this guy make his article. 207.246.169.110 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because here at Wikipedia, we have inclusion standards. Also, please review our guidelines on civility. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High school teams are notable where i'm from, hell they even get coverage on epsn. and thanks bud. i'm talking to you 207.246.169.110. ThatOneGuy 207-67 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability standards. Fails to assert notability. Fails to explain anything about the subject such as what city, state, and country the program is in. Fails to provide independent acceptable reliable sources. Sources that are provided are simply a repeat of the page itself, so there is no reason for the page to even exist. Subject matter is a high school football team, so it is unlikely it will ever achieve the level of notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails to explain anything about the subject such as what city, state, and country the program is in." i haven't gotten to it yet, i just started the page. just give it some time, its not finished yet. ThatOneGuy 207-67 (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Please then move it to your userspace and work on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources that are provided are simply a repeat of the page itself" thats not actually true as the alumni association made several mistakes with past records and they have also stop updating there website after the 2005 season. this page will continue where they left off and also provide other independent info when myself or others get to it. ThatOneGuy 207-67 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's original research and should be deleted by policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.197.130 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — 143.43.197.130 (talk) 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 redirect to St Mac Dara's Community College. Plausible redirect. So not deleting; rather, plainly redirecting. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Mcdaras Community College[edit]

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

This absolute orphan is an inferior duplication of St Mac Dara's Community College, the same school. The title of the article for deletion is misspelled. The other article is the real one. O'Dea (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Mac Dara's Community College, as this might be a reasonable search term but for the misspelling. The duplication means any merge is a non-starter; there's nothing to merge, really. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per UltraExactZZ's reasoning. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect' to St Mac Dara's Community College as a possible misspelling. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 October 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) 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrika Troja[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since January 2008. With greatest respect to Dr Troja, subject would appear to fail the basic criteria for notability of people. Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entire article is just a recitation of his various titles and job activities. WoS shows 1 meeting abstract from 1987 that's never been cited. Nothing else to base any claim of notability on. Article created by a spa account "Albunix" – this may be little more than a vanity page that's been under the radar for more than 2 years. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no specifics of significant contributions he's made, only a listing of appointments, and the sourcing is thin to nonexistent. The article claims that he is the author of several books but reading between the lines they seem to be used only locally and I can't verify their existence in worldcat. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. If Wikipedia was paper, the ink on the first nomination would still be wet. If someone wishes to contest the first nomination then please take it to DRV. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon-India[edit]

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

The Previous nominator was correct, and how can we believe this channel exists, the logo of this channel is just like the logo of the American one, no references make some people feel that this page is a mere lie. This page is constructed very badly. Unfortunately by the editor's deeds, Wikipedia will suffer. Alekhya Emani (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, I completely agree with the nominator. The page is in a very bad condition and no-one is taking interest to improve it. Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for Anirudh Emani and Alekhya Emani Please read WP:MEAT and WP:FAMILY. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm slightly confused... is this a serious nomination? Channel is part of Viacom 18 as stated in article. The briefest of internet searches backs this up. See Viacom 18 website for example. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last AfD ended five days ago. Starting a new AfD so quickly is usually frowned upon. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep if you accuse something of being a hoax at least have a look at the official website of the supposed parent company. Yoenit (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The channel obviously exists, and no other valid reason has been provided for deletion. If the nominator and her brother are concerned about the current state of the article then I would suggest improving the content and adding references rather than repeatedly nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 30 September 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. Although Boing! said Zebedee's redirect option could have been used, JamesBWatson and Armbrust appropriately show the lack of any sources verifying the album's (future) existence. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^v^w^v^ (Car Bomb album)[edit]

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

As per WP:BALL. Article is largely conjectural and constitutes WP:OR Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dude it's THE INTERNET. This is a well crafted page that follows all your stupid little wiki-prude-ia guidelines to a T and this album page will eventually become more developed and less conjectural as time goes on and more details are unfolded. There is little to no information on this upcoming album across the entire internet so i thought creating this now would give Car Bomb fans a place to come together and know where the band was really at in the recording process.

I see all your super-awesome hall-monitor badges dude but tuck your tail on this one and leave this article alone. I'm really sick and tired of posting WELL CRAFTED articles to only be shut down for an entirely fabricated and egotistical reason. Wikipedia has oodles and oodles of conjectural articles that don't even have correct spelling OR properly cited references yet they still remain. This is a GOOD article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wewillfindartagain (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to limit the comments to arguments as to why the article should remain. Ad-hominems rarely sway consensus in these debates. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is little to no information on this upcoming album across the entire internet" suggests that there is likely to be a lack of notability. "Creating this now would give Car Bomb fans a place to come together and know where the band was really at in the recording process" indicates that your purpose is publicising or promoting the album. Both of these are clear indications that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's "stupid little wiki-prude-ia guidelines", so, contrary to your evident intention, these are arguments for deleting the article, not for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Car Bomb (band). Pure conjecture and speculation. Redirect to the band's article until something verifiable from reliable sources emerges. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for meeting in the middle with me. I apologize for my free talk and excessive argumentation, i just finished reading the majority of the Wikpedia is not pages and now can understand a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wewillfindartagain (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you want a redirect, than it should be at ^v^w^v^. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does a source exist for the album name? I can't find anything on it outside of wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too have searched, and not found anything anywhere about this, apart from Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no reliable sources about this album and it is a very unlikely search term. TenPoundHammer's Law can be aplied too, as there is no information on tracklist and release date and no source confirms the title of the album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced. The two so-called "references" are links to YouTube videos which don't, as far as I can see, mention this album, let alone confirm any of the statements in the article. Even the author of the article refers to some of the information given as "purported", and goes on to refer to things which "could" be the case, and describes his/her own statements as a "hypothesis". In short, by the author's own admission the article is largely unsubstantiated speculation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to preserve history, as the primary author of the page was the one who merged it. NW (Talk) 02:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song[edit]

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

References of a single song are not enough or notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:OR article sourced only by wiki's and the urban dictionary. Normally I would suggest redirect/merge to Geek and Gamer Girls Song, but neither the song itself nor the band seem notable (both prodded, for failing WP:NSONG and WP:BAND). Yoenit (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no basis at all for a whole article just on this single aspect of teh song. In fact I think a speedy deletion under CSD A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) would be reasonable. As for merging, there is really no content worth merging, quite apart from Yoenit's point about lack of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reference list of a single song isn't notable enough, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song isn't notable either, but even if it were this would still be pure trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the song article. It needs some content adding though - just listing the references isn't enough. I could stick the lyrics through a bit of Python to Google and get that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Geek and Gamer Girls Song - as Andy suggested. The references are interesting to know, but as Andy said, it needs elaboration. Otherwise it can be deleted. --V2Blast (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE non notable. He iro 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Geek and Gamer Girls Song per Andy. This is utterly unworthy of its own article. ScarletPepper (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Sound resonable, will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs)
- http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Article information has been added (merged?) with the Geek and Gamer Girls Song article. I have no objections to this article being deleted.
  - merge and delete is normally not done, but I suppose we can ignore the rules in this case as the merger was also the articles sole contributor. Yoenit (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) NorthernDragon (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010
Delete - lack of coverage. No need for a separate article. PhilKnight (talk) 00:52, 8 October 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) 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Simister architect[edit]

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

CV of an architect. Though possibly notable the article would need a complete rewrite. It is also an autobiography, since the author User:Simi1947 is presumably the subject. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy It's not inconceivable that the guy is notable, but it would take a complete rewrite to establish this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that article in its current state is essentially unusable. We've seen other self-posted, resume-like architect submissions that turned out to have the kernel of a worthwhile article, but this one is lacking the usual "Publications" section that documents coverage of the architect's work. Here is his bio page at Aedas; it suggests that he is a significant person at a large and notable firm, but doesn't really make much of a case for his own personal Wikipedia-defined notability--if I understand it correctly, his principal current responsibility at Aedas is to coordinate their submissions to competitions, which may indeed be important to the firm but doesn't necessarily relate to his own personal connection to notable built works. It does mention that he won "the CABE Building for Life Award and the RIBA Award for Chorlton Park Housing". However the Wikipedia article for Chorlton Park Apartments does not identify him as one of the architects (although his CABE submission on the project is listed in the footnotes, but seems to be a deadlink, unfortunately). I'm open to changing my mind if coverage of his notable work turns up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:34, 1 October 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 Umran Bakr Muhammad Hawsawi. The merge cum redirect votes were dependent on the content availability; apparently, there is nothing to merge. So a simple redirect is in order. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi[edit]

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

A WP:content fork for Umran Bakr Muhammad Hawsawi. Nsk92 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge was already proposed, don't see why this is at AFD. If there is nothing to merge, just redirect it. Yoenit (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree the previously suggested merge and redirect is in order. Geo Swan (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Snow. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge here that is not already in the target article. Nsk92 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and redirect. Nothing to merge. Two article about the same person started by the same editor. It is a mess that is known for a very long time. IQinn (talk) 06:02, 2 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Patrick Flaherty[edit]

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

This is a local elected official function. Fails notability at WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNP: (Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.) Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Not a notable political office. Mattlore (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. WP:POLITICIAN is very clear on this - no national or statewide position, no article. There is also no media coverage. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 08:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear fail on WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, however, redirects are cheap and I would not object if this article pointed to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in the event someone thought it to be a likely search term. Location (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 22:34, 30 September 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Chun Kungfu Academy Indonesia[edit]

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

A search shows no evidence of notability - I've deleted references to a personal interview and a blog - the link to the blog is in the edit history (there was no link for the personal interview). I've also taken an associated article to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suwanto Lim. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy delete I see no sources or claims of notability. I didn't find any reliable sources showing notability, just mirrors of Wikipedia. Astudent0 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claims of notability and has no sources. I found no independent sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was actually going to put an A7 or a PROD on this article myself, but as an afterthought I left a 'noref' tag on it to give it a day or two to develop. Doug has beaten me to it now with this AfD and I have to agree with everything he says. My searches for sources haven't revealed anything that asserts notability.--Kudpung (talk) 05:09, 4 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suwanto Lim[edit]

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

A search shows no evidence of notability by our criteria. I've deleted 3 references, one to a blog, one to a forum, and the other just 'personal interview', but they are available through the edit history if anyone wants to view them. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Chun Kungfu Academy Indonesia. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is an unsourced article with no claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see neither sources nor claims of notability that pass WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I had already PRODed this article once, and the tag was removed when the creator added his blog and non WP:RS as sources. --Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 4 October 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) Alexf^(talk) 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory +a[edit]

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

WP:N: I won't speedy or PROD this because it's somehow software-related, but I do believe you must be quite a geek to think that some taskbar-gadget for Warcraft warrants its own article... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh delete - is there a stronger term than fancruft for this level of player-manual trivia? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something nowhere near encyclopedic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, almost a dictionary definition. -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video game-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Note that the link currently goes to a domain name hostage site. That site was "mineskeys.com", which makes me somehow doubt that this was something any World of Warcraft player would actually want to install. There should be no hesitation to speedy or PROD software related articles, especially when they're as marginal as this one. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - there is no applicable speedy category for software, books, movies, albums, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and far too in-depth to be merged to anywhere else. ---Taelus (Talk) 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No way that this passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 30 September 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 indef semi-protected. Protected by User:Courcelles; status as a heavily-vandalized article is not a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Gaming[edit]

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

I'm getting tired of editing back the IP edits. Besides, this article is really only edited once a year, so it's mostly useless. This article has come a long way since I revamped it soon after the first AfD nomination, but I think it's time to finally put it to sleep. Treyvo (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little confused... are you saying this business is not notable, or that it's notable but too tempting a target for vandalism or bad edits? 28bytes (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: requested semi-protection. See no reason to delete the article. Yoenit (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the vandalism is excessive. Placed an indef semi-protection. Can the next admin through here shut this thing down? Courcelles 06:54, 30 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballinger Independent School District[edit]

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

This looks like a completely non-notable subject. Even the state of Texas barely acknowledges its existence, ranking it only as "recognized." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamdubya (talk • contribs) 29 September 2010

Keep No real reason for deletion was presented beyond a reading of the article and determining you didn't like it. It's only a stub but presents itself just fine for what it is; a small school district in Texas. No major controversies, the point in the article is actually just a compulsory rating and again, not seeing exactly what's wrong with this article beyond being short. Nate • (chatter) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school district is a governmental entity, and it includes a high school[9]. See WP:OUTCOMES#Education and WP:NHS.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school districts get plenty of coverage, partially but not entirely because they're governmental entities. Read Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system — you'll see that "Recognized" is a statement that the school district is doing a good job; it's not a statement of "We know that you exist". Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No legitimate rationale for deletion provided. Looks like a decent stub to me, and school districts appear to be inherently notable entities based on WP:OUTCOMES. As User:Nyttend points out above, the term "Recognized" is used by the TEA for accountability purposes, not as an indicator of existence, and could have been determined with minimal research prior to this nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Broad consensus exists that school districts are governmental entities that are inherently notable. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 4 October 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. Agricola has a valid point, but 168...141 gives a credible argument against a keep rationale. Considering other comments of voters, the consensus is perceived to be of delete. There is no prejudice against the article getting recreated soon after this delete, provided WP:PROF or WP:N is met. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Winkelnkemper[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 168.7.214.218, reason (see talk page) is "I don't think that Winkelnkemper meets the criterion for notability. He's not even a full professor!" --Pgallert (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "not a full professor" isn't relevant. The other comment on the talk page may be relevant. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Talk page referred to above observes that this person is no longer active as a researcher, which appears to be more-or-less true. However, that's not really relevant for our purposes because notability is not a function of status. Several of his older papers have citation counts that are fairly respectable for pure maths, in particular there are 2 papers in AMS journals having citations of 52 and 32. Maths is generally one of the lower citation fields, and his total collective cites are >100, according to WoS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Whatever the original rational for the AfD, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the subject meets the criteria set out in WP:PROF.--RDBury (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to mathscinet, he's written a total of 15 papers starting in 1968. None of them appear in top journals (eg the Annals, JAMS, Inventiones, IHES, Duke, etc.). He does have two papers with good (though not astonishing) citation counts, though one of them ("On the existence of contact forms") was coauthored with Fields medalist William Thurston, so Winkelnkemper probably shouldn't get too much credit for it. If this thin record was enough to make a professor notable, then any full professor of mathematics at an AMS Group I university (see http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/group_i ) would qualify, which is nonsense. In fact, these days you would even have trouble getting tenure with this kind of record at many places. 168.7.218.141 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Our article on open book decomposition name-drops him but does not cite him or say anything of significance about him. His publication record is short and, although it includes a couple of papers with good citation records, he's had plenty of time to do better than that. There doesn't seem to be anything other than the publication and citation record to go on. The only non-primary source is a dissertation database. I don't think we'd lose anything of importance by not having this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 6 October 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 The Red Necklace#Character List. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidonie Du Villeduval[edit]

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

This totally unreferenced article has been lingering in the basement of unpatrolled new articles for a month because no one knows what to do with it, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it either. I think an AfD discussion is the fairest way to reach a consensus. Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to The Red Necklace#Character List. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joe Chill, Sadads (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above, WP:NOT#PLOT, no established WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:57, 1 October 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) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Bergkvist[edit]

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

Subject has not been proven notable, outside sources have not been provided. Due to non-notability of the subject and the apparent inability to give the article any real content, I feel a deletion is in order. 67.184.164.200 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{I've completed the nomination on behalf of 67.184.164.200 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion on the worth or the unworth of the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - Relevant sources are not either not independent or fansites and forums. Fails WP:ARTIST. Fæ (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There are sufficient claims of notability to retain.[10], [11]. The spanish version was prodded and then deprodded a few years back after sources were added.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets 5 gnews hits [12] but not really indepth significant coverage. 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webcam-V[edit]

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

Non-notable product lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:ARTSPAM but I could be wrong. - Hydroxonium (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 03:22, 7 October 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Adult Baseball Association[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable league The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive news coverage of this organization--more than 1,000 hits shown for this organization at Google News archives.[13] I would not favor a multitude of articles about all the NABA leagues around the country, but an article about the national organization is appropriate and worthwhile.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there may be a good amount of coverage, WP:GNG also says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I don't think a semi-pro league is appropriate for an article. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator fails to describe what is "non-notable" about it. 1,000+ hits is quite a bit and the article as a whole is well-sourced (although they are not independent). The subject easily meets the general notability guidelines. As for the "semi-pro" argument, it holds no water. Just because it's not fully professional doesn't mean it's non-notable. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, as Brian points out.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "seems to be" a very vague nomination with no reasoning to justify it. "Seems to be" a nominator who doesn't know what he is doing. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair critique of the nominator. I'm sure ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) nominated it in good faith. The nominator isn't and shouldn't be the focus of the AfD debate, the article is. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in large part. However, I do think that a wp:before search would have obviated this AfD, and can therefore understand Kinston's frustration. The literature, including the few books I added as examples, reflect that this is one of the two most popular such leagues in the nation.Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources from national news publications have established general notability guidelines for the subject. Vodello (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. I really don't see any good argument for deleting. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 3 October 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. Notable agency; sources added have added to the keep vote weight. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Marketing Board[edit]

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

Longterm WP:GNG tags, unable to find RS that speifcally covers the topic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find sources verifying it has been involved in trade fairs etc but no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant enough coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The subject is certainly notable enough, as it's part of the syndicalist arrangements which keep food prices high in the U.S., but the article is a reprint of a statement at the Board's website. (Which is probably a copyvio.) When someone cares enough to dig into resources like this book, there can be an article. Argyriou (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent source — well done. Your !vote is puzzling though. Me, I care enough but don't like being taken advantage of. Rather than work on this article, I'm going to write Too many chiefs and not enough Indians instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted as I did because when the entire article is a copyvio, it's better to nuke it and start over. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nuking and starting over has already been done, demonstrating that article deletion isn't a necessary part of that process. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is definitely notable, and now there is now a real article which is not a copyvio. Argyriou (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable agency of the US Federal government. Note that it was formerly known as the Walnut Control Board. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a notable agency"? It has to meet WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the assertions above that editors are unable find sources puzzling. All you have to do is click on the word "books" that is right there in the nomination and you'll find 282 sources, the very first of which contains significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please evaluate the current article - refs added, copyvio fixed. Meets WP:CORP by virtue of more-than-passing mentions by independent sources.It is discussed in these books [14], [15], [16] and in this paper published by Cornell [17] and this journal [18]. Under its various names, "Walnut Control Board", 59 GNews archives hits [19]; "Walnut Marketing Board" 498 Gnews hits;[20]; "California Walnut Board", 57 Gnews hits [21]. Depth of coverage is no problem using all the .gov sites. Novickas (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. This is one of the dozens of similar organizations created during the New Deal. Figureofnine (talk) 15:31, 6 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Enterprise Service Bus[edit]

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

Longterm WP:GNG issues and mutliple other tags. Unable to verify most stuff here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESBs are just starting to be noticed in mainstream IT. As this article was written back in 2007, that's early days and unsurprisingly short on secondary coverage. Deleting an article on Oracle's (You've heard of Oracle, right?) ESB product is exactly the sort of thing that makes WP look so ridiculous to real people. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Oracle has changed the name (branding) of this to "Oracle Service Bus" (but it's still Oracle's enterprise service bus). The article should be renamed. Here's the current links: [22], [23]. I agree with Andy Dingley's comment about looking ridiculous. Please! Please! If you don't understand a topic, that isn't a good reason to nominate it for deletion. Ask for help from a Resident Technologist instead. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep, and perhaps revisit this in a year or ten. Searching for sources, I was able to uncover one book about this product. There does seem to be some confusion about which product of several this actually is.

But Oracle's fame does not confer inherited notability on each of its products. This is deep, deep back office stuff that nobody outside the IT department is going to interact with directly. Products like this are unlikely to get much disinterested notice from outside the trade, of a sort that shows this product has the kind of technical, historical, or cultural significance of the kind that equals long term historical notability. It looks like more of the bog-standard IT-cruft touting a commercial product, and as such I find nothing "ridiculous" about this nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Just one book? I've been a production review editor on at least two myself. Also if I have to share space with fecking baseball and pokemon (I don't even know who Steven Colbert is), I expect a certain amount of mutual respect towards my own trade. After all, if it wasn't for IT morlocks, you'd still be on CB radio and hanging out on street corners. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I do respect "IT morlocks"; but it remains my impression that the IT world is full of fads and flashes in the pan. I will admit that overexposure to spam makes me rather wary. Still, it's not our task to stay on the cutting edge of "emergent" methods or concepts, nor to catalog every IT product ever offered, but rather to report on those that have the kind of long term significance needed to share space with Socrates, the steam engine, or Visicalc. So no, I don't find this nomination "ridiculous". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for Smerdis - I have always wondered why is it you insist that coverage of computing-related topics must come from outside computing-related publications to satisfy notability requirements. Do you think that Art majors and Humanity types, for example, have the capability and authority to determine what computing topics have technical, historical, or cultural significance? I would be very concerned if you answered with something other than "no". Just because its the same people who are writing about their disipline/trade, does not mean that they are automatically subject to bias, and are incapable of writing critism and with objectivity. Influential microprocessor magazine, Microprocessor Report, publishes the most objective coverage and the scathing critism of microprocessors, and it is as not-outside the topic of microprocessors as it can be without being a publication cheerleading for the industry. In contrast, many large newspapers publish sugary, ignorant, exaggerated, nonsensensical rubbish about microprocessors, yet they are staffed by people from media, not the computer industry. Do you see my point?
- Furthermore, I find your comments that automatically assume "back-office IT room stuff" to be automatically non-notable to be rather biased against "back-office IT room stuff". Different topics are notable for different reasons, their non-notabiility for reasons that are not applicable is irrelevant. Do you think an arguement that Pokemon are not notable because they are animals, and animals are studied by zoologists, but zoologists don't study Pokemon, logical? I don't. An argument for non-notability because media studies and cultural studies people don't study Pokemon is logigcal because it is applicable to Pokemon. I would prefer it if you would you stopped making suggestions and arguments such as these. The amount of coverage is sufficient to tell us about the notability of a topic, objectively as well. Rilak (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the book referenced above and other coverage found here and here. I would however, note that we already have a massive systemic bias towards IT-related subjects, and there is no reason to treat specific products used as components of software systems as having any more inherent notability than specific products used as components in the real "real world", such as (and I'm taking a wild guess that this will be a red link) the SKF 306-2ZNR bearing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a mechanical or manufacturing engineer, so I've never heard of the SKF 306-2ZNR bearing. However, if it is important to that field, I say it should have an article, redirect or listing somewhere in WP. Oracle Service Bus is more than an individual component, so the comparison to a particular model of bearing isn't apropos AFAICT. The service bus is part of Oracle's suite of products to implement service-oriented architectures for its customers. This is the direction all the major software vendors and developers are going now. It's not a fad or flash in the pan. On the other hand, it probably will not have the lasting significance of Socrates or steam engine. However, WP:N doesn't set the bar that high, much to Smerdis of Tlön's apparent disappointment. At this time, and I hope forever, WP isn't limited to only the articles that a particular faction finds notable. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the fact many Wikipedia editors work in IT and "know" what topics are notable doesn't mean that articles about IT are exempt from our guidelines on notability through sources. I note that neither editor characterising the nomination as "ridiculous" presented any independent sources to back up their position: the work of finding the notability-clinching source was done by the editor who gritted his teeth and gave a "weakest possible keep" opinion. My professional background is in IT, and have seen enough "next big things" (OSI, anyone? Which IBM was still pushing for years after I was making lots of money helping to sell TCP/IP products [not "solutions", please] for MVS?) over the last 30 years to take such claims with a pinch of salt, and with an insistence on proper sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not belaboring the point, but human folly deserves full treatment in WP, IMO. All "next big things" will either turn out to be big things or big follies. (There is a systematic bias against publishing results that show either no effect or failure. This is a shame, since it means valuable knowledge is lost, and others will waste time and money to achieve the same results.) Also, my "ridiculous" comment above comes more from the apparent lack of effort to fix an article before nominating it for deletion. That's the soapbox I'm on. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:13, 2 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booger (childrens book)[edit]

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

Notability. Book is apparently self-published (only book Amazon has published by Marsgang ), has no notable third-party reviews (Kirkus, Library Journal, etc.) on its Amazon listing (which normally shows such things), has a sales rank of over 4,000,000. Worldcat search finds no copies in libraries. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At first I thought it was a notable author until I realised it was not the Mary Phillips who has a WP article. Adpete (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any RS references to this book that could establish notability. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just a non-notable children's book with zero third party reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, Sadads (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't show enough notability. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:20, 4 October 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. Work on the article post the AfD being opened seems to have allowed it to qualify for the keep bordering on no-consensus that I perceive here. The references pointed out by the likes of SilverSeren add to weight of notability, however, the arguments of Kudpung and others cannot be ignored. Like I mentioned, I should qualify this as a keep bordering a no-consensus. There is no prejudice to an early AfD being opened if work on the article does not improve it beyond the doubts expressed here. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wollongong Conservatorium of Music[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. current sources are only its own website. no extensive coverage. [24]. Just deserves a one line mention in Wollongong. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge basic details to Wollongong article.- Fails as per nom. Further searches have not revealed WP:RS according to Wikipedia policy, or any entries other than directories or social networks. As it stands, It in in fact a WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will refrain from voting as I am biased by being involved with the Conservatorium (despite that, I will emphasise that the Con is a very important and vibrant part of the local community here), but I would dispute there being "no extensive coverage" of its activities. This is a non-trivial amount of coverage, of which I'm sure a lot could be added as references to the article, should someone find the time. — Jeremy 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. a lot of those hits are simply event listings which is not indepth coverage required to establish notability. " a very important and vibrant part of the local community here" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very reluctant Delete - fails WP:ORG~~.
Question: is it affiliated with University of Wollongong? If so, possible WP:Redirect or search term? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not affiliated with the universtity. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is affiliated with the University. — Jeremy 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

even if it is, there is insufficient evidence to meet WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant local institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have sources to back this up? LibStar (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LibStar: Cite your sources, Xxanthippe and Jeremy--Shirt58 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been cited by Jeremy above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

they are weak sources mainly event listings, and none have been incorporated into main article. currently it still only has primary sources. Xxanthippe !vote can be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE in the absence of evidence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of refs and worked them in by creating a History section. While the coverage in the Illawarra Mercury newspaper doesn't count toward notability, as it is merely a local city newspaper, the significant coverage from The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is enough to convince me of the notability of the Conservatorium. Silver seren^C 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the latest sources get it over the line. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't: The first of your references is a fleeing mention in the end notes of an article about the town and its tourist attractions. The long tourism article is not about the subject and : People interested in architecture should walk up the hill to Gleniffer Brae (now the Wollongong Conservatorium of Music), completed in 1939 for the Hoskins family. The chimneys (fascinating examples of the bricklayer's art) alone are worth the walk. cannot possibly be interpreted as significant coverage about a school, an academy, a conservatorium, or other institute of learning. I also had to put the entire newspaper article through a search routine programme to fine that fleeting mention. The second of your references is a very brief ABC online paragraph about money owed to the conservatorium and is also not significant coverage - however broadly construed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've struck my delete !vote in light of the above discussion, especially in light of Silverseren's referencing, but cannot find sufficient reason to change my !vote to keep. I assume it is part of or affiliated with UoW. I would argue that WP:UNIGUIDE would dictate that the notability turns on whether it is sufficiently autonomous from UoW to not be considered a faculty. If it is simply a faculty of UoW, then as per Kudpung's assessment of the references, it is not notable, and as per WP:ORG it should perhaps be mentioned in the UoW article. If it is "especially notable or significant" (emphasis mine) then it is "article-worthy". I focus on "significant". By a (somewhat controverted) general consensus, non-notable secondary schools are - for lack of a better term - "article-worthy". Arguing that that applies here would be a false analogy. Nevertheless, Wollongong Conservatorium of Music is a publicly-funded, degree-awarding tertiary institution: does that make it "significant"? I have no answer to that question.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Con is not a faculty. It is simply an affiliation and sharing of resources. Music courses at the Uni are taught at the Uni, and music courses at the Con are taught at the Con, although they may share facilities and hold joint functions from time to time.

However, as I have stated above, I will not comment on notability. — Jeremy 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources for this assertion, Jeremy.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still take a firm stance that inclusion should be backed up by our very clear policies regarding sources. If it is a recognised university in its own right, or a mainstream secondary school, there are clear guidelines for inclusion. But the conservatorium appears to be neither.--Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot cite it as it comes from my own knowledge. Not all of us live our daily lives with an encyclopedia next to us every second of the day. I wasn't stating the above to be included in the article — it was more of an FYI. If you don't like it because it's not cited, well that's your problem. Ignore it. I utterly refuse to cite it, and if it means you won't take me seriously after this, so be it. — Jeremy 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Uni comments There is currently no source that states that the Conservatorium is a part of the University. I've seen nothing in the sources to imply that the Conservatorium is a facility of the University. The closest connection they have, according to the sources, is the University has considered buying the rest of the property so they can have creative arts classes there, though they would continue to allow the Conservatorium to lease the section it is in. This seems to imply to me that the University and the Conservatorium are not a part of one another, they just work together on occasion. And this is coming right from the sources in the article right now. Silver seren^C 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) That is a very good point. From the references, there is little indication that it is affiliated with UoW. :-( Unfortunately, and again from the references, it's also a very good reason why the article should be deleted. If it's a stand-alone institution, then there are only passing references to it in reliable sources. Yep, I want this article to be kept, but I can't see reasons enough for that. I'm still neutral --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, this isn't a poll anyway, and the quality and the leaning of the comments will be taken into consideration by the closing admin, and actual consensus could well outweigh what might appear in a tally of !votes. I've got nothing against this school either, but per WP:NOHARM I still see no reason why it should have an article,and why we should risk setting a precedent by bending the rules. --Kudpung (talk) 17:06, 3 October 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 by nominator. (Non-admin closure) 28bytes (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiesville[edit]

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

Makes no indication of significance. Does not contain references. Mr. R00t ^Talk 01:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named populated areas satisfy the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article if identified by a government source. No further indication of significance is required. It's a stub. Anyway, I just added some references and info. Have a look. patsw (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'd ask at this point for some uninvolved admin to close now as it no longer has the problems it started with. It no longer needs to be deleted. Mr. R00t ^Talk 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable populated places are considered notable, as has been established by countless AfDs prior to this one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep None of the problems I originally saw are there anymore. Thank you TheCatalyst31 for explaining that notability thing to me. And thanks Patsw for fixing the article and finding sources. Mr. R00t ^Talk 03:35, 30 September 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. Although Andy Dingley gives some arguments towards keep, the delete rationales of the other ivoters,including nom, are credibly strong. I find consensus for delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.22 Reed Express[edit]

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

Minor unnotable cartridge. The only source given doesn't say anything about it other than it exists. I couldn't find any other reliable sources. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cartridge fails notability requirement. Little outside info apart from reedammo

Keep Have you read WP:NOTABILITY? The requirement is for sources to mention the subject, not for it to meet some arbitrary level of "interestingness". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the "significant coverage" qualification is to avoid any need for subjectivity in its interpretation. It's still not a judgement of significance.

This is an uninteresting cartridge. It's not innovative, it was never pivotal in relieving the siege of Mafeking. Despite that, it has a name, the crucial dimensions are known, and there's adequate referencing for that much. Maybe neither of us would ever spend the time to create this article ourselves, but none of this is reason to delete it. "Encyclopedic" coverage means wide coverage and listing the dull stuff too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me try to understand. Are you recommending that any cartridge that exists, as established by having a name and dimensions, is inherently notable? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as per our clear policy, notability is conveyed by mention in independent sources. This article has that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was precisely my problem, lack of independent sources. I see "steves pages" which isn't WP:RS. And I see self-published, which can't be used to establish notability. I was unable to find anything in my own searches. Believe me, I have a firearms cartridge library that is the envy of everyone I know and I'd love for this to be notable, but I was unable to find anything in print or online outside of reeds and blogs/forums. If you know of something else, please let me know. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your issue here? Lack of sourcing, or lack of significance? Neither of these are reason to delete, only lack of notability (and that freaky sort of WP:N at that).

The current sourcing is rubbish (two dead links, one irrelevant link), but that's WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BEFORE, not AfD. I might be inclined to delete on that basis, except that's not what it was nominated for and (more importantly) there are >9000 Ghits that suggest the sourcing issue is fixable, not fatal. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I was followed WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability, therefore I was unable to fix it. The Ghits I could find don't lead anywhere other than forums, blogs, and self-published. Note that limited google search [25] produces far fewer hits, and still nothing WP:RS. As noted, I have extensive books on cartridges and none of them list this either, including obscure out-of-print books. Despite your assumption, I tried first and failed, that's why I nominated it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's still >5000 GHits of semi-cruft. It's just not credible to assume that a footprint that big doesn't have something behind it. If your books don't mention it, that's probably because it appears to be a very recent development and they just won't have got round to it yet. No-one is asking you to write the thing, just to accept that it exists. As to the SPS issue, then if we grant that the thing's notable, it's legitimate to use Reed themselves to fill in the dimensions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried various means of trimming the google search and at one point had it down to 740+hits. A persual of multiple pages there still found nothing - it's gotten past the point of "sources might exist" - if they do, then someone should list it. WP:ITEXISTS isn't a reason to keep things. It reads "the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try "-Reed -Express" if you're that persistent. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely. The cartridge lacks notability. There is no independent sources to collaborate claims. If articles like these can be thrown up on the wiki and stay here. I am going have my own working projects put up on the internet and then come back to the Wiki and writing about it. I have done the searches and found no reliable information. What stops people from writing about some silly subject or project into the wiki? Notability and independent reliable sources. I should write my own bio on Wiki I can source from several sources. But I know better than write myself in. Several school and organizations around and write tnemselves into the wiki and get deleted because of the reasons AFH has mentioned. The Wiki is not a repository of any and every piece of knowledge or information out there, rather it should notable and be reliably sourced. I agree with AFH's line of reasoning. Article need to be deleted. DeusImperator (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the subject has never had significant coverage at any point of time in the past. The article cannot be merged into existing articles. The subject of the article fail each and every one of the guidelines. Significant coverage, reliability, independent of the subject, sources (secondary sources). Arguing that the subject of the article meets this criteria is a loosing proposition. If there is going to be any redeeming value in the article it should be appealed on a different grounds. If there is going to be an article written at present about this cartridge it will have to include forum material as there only "significant coverage". Also it appears that there this might be a work in progress for the moment. The best course is to remove the article and wait until there is some coverage in the future. AT the moment there is no reliable sources. DeusImperator (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countering, AD concerns that there exists that lack of sourcing or lack of significance is not a reason to delete; well if that was true than nothing will be deleted or can be deleted. Everything that may be insignificant or not sourced cannot be deleted. Obviously we know that is not the case. We do delete insignificant, and unsourced articles when it meets other criteria hence a discussion. If it is insignificant and unsourced we do try to find the information from reliable sources or merge etc; this is were the Wiki project plays its part. I know for a fact that User:AliveFreeHappyhas been diligent in attempting to save articles by finding sources, re-writing, editing etc. Failing a lack of independent reliable sources, articles that do not meet the guidelines should be deleted. Just because it is an encyclopedia does not mean everyone and his dog can get something into the Wiki. That is the way the Wiki looses credibility and becomes repository for useless erroneous unreliable rubbish.DeusImperator (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to verify notability. Figureofnine (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:05, 5 October 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. Already listed on the Who disambiguation page. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who (Dr. Seuss)[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-common element of several works of fiction. ^Bongo_matic 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: largely OR and non-notable. Roscelese (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge into the articles about the books mentioned in the article. These are characters from those books and should be featured on those pages. -- BenTels (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation page: The solution Jclemens suggests below is a better one. -- BenTels (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a disambiguation page There's really nothing in common about the two types of Whos besides the name. This should be a disambiguation page, pointing to both of the books in which Whos are used. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the idea of a disambiguation page. However, I created the page so that others may add on to it. I find it unfair that the expansion of a page is forced upon a single individual, as opposed to being edited by several people. I put in only basic information with the hopes that someone else would later add on to it. Keep this in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog892 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable choice. However all the page could say is that creatures called "Whos" are found in two books (and their TV specials and movies.) Anything more would be OR. Borock (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Disamgbiguate/Divide Everybody who ever grew up in the US in the last 30 years knows what a Who is. Clearly lots of source material 74.115.212.27 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 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) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was expecting to vote to keep since, as was said, I know a lot about Whos. However the issue of there being two types presents a problem. Unless a secondary source has discussed the issue WP taking it on would be WP:Original research, as worthy as the project would be. (The editor should be commended for trying.) Borock (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging any non-OR info (if any) into the appropriate Seuss book articles. Note that there already is this line in the Who disambiguation page, so I think we're already covered in the disambiguation department: 28bytes (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Whos" of Whoville, a creature featured in the Dr. Seuss book series Horton Hears a Who! and The Grinch

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carnegie Mellon University. Somone can merge it in when they source the material. I'm not going to merge in a paragraph of unsourced prose, however. Courcelles 04:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CmuTV[edit]

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

Non-notable closed circuit television station at a university. This station is not broadcast outside the university on any cable or broadcast channels. It is broadcast on the internet, but just about any dummy can broadcast a "tv channel" on the web. Finally, there are no third party sources to establish notability.. GrapedApe (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing from WP:RS to indicate why this particular closed-circuit channel is notable. A majority of the article is an unencyclopedic list of in-house programming. Many schools have this type of campus channel, and there is nothing to differentiate this from any others. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete: merge the existence and possibly the major programming into Carnegie Mellon University, drop the rest. -- BenTels (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim per BenTels. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carnegie Mellon University as per BenTels. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could those editors suggesting a merge be more specific? That is, what sourced content should be merged ("major programming" is vague... what is the definition of "major" when there is no third-party sourcing?), and where in the main Carnegie Mellon article would be an appropriate location? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 29 September 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) 00:43, 30 September 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and yes I did notice that one editor !voted "keep" twice) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Frontiers: A Public Lands Journey[edit]

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

Non-notable book/project Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],[31], and [32]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The project is both notable and educational. There are very few articles concerning public lands on Wikipedia. I will continue to edit tone. Publiclands (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This educational project pioneered an border-to-border route for pretty pure purposes, and should be included, as a matter of historical note. I am not sure how it constitutes advertisement at all, since it happened 8 years ago [33] [34][35].68.35.186.175 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)68.35.186.175 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Queenellen[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 04:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please take a few seconds to check the Google news and Google book searches BEFORE you nominate something. Plenty of notable news sources mention this, and the first result in a Google Book search shows American Motorcyclist‎ magazine did an article about it. Dream Focus 05:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more Wikipedia References, as well as external links. Again, this article is perfectly notable and should be kept. I will continue to make improvements. Publiclands (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy and highly noteable not for profit awareness raising project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:55, 6 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Maybe Four[edit]

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

IMO fails WP:BAND, but creator says that it does not, see talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm curious where the Sam Moss quote came from... if the band was actually reviewed in Rolling Stone that would certainly help in the notability department, but I'm coming up with zilch on Google for it. 28bytes (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this either a very non-notable band or a hoax. Couldn't find any reliable sources, and i have tried at many ways: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Aritcle is totally unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Armbrust. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunterdon Drug Awareness Program[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two refs - both from the same local newspaper - only mention Hunterdon Drug Awareness Program in passing, the real subject of those pages being a person who happened to have an involvement with the HDAP. Hence I think it fails WP:ORG. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local news, especially one local newspaper, does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the person who made the page. Being it is a local organization, there is not much news related to the founding of the organization. The links I cited are independent sources (Hunterdon County Democrat) regarding facts surrounding the starting of the organization. I will continue to research to find other articles that speak on the origins of the organization, but I have yet to find any books or articles that speak directly to this topic. If you feel the citations are incorrect, please let me know. The information cited is in each of these articles, one of the articles was the obituary of one of the founders of the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC) — Guedde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I also see above (sorry didn't see it before) that it is a non-notable local organization, however, Hunterdon Medical Center has been listed for 2 years. This organization is the only non-profit organization of its type in Hunterdon County, with historical relevance of being built by the Hunterdon County community after a series of drug related deaths. The organization exists to serve the community and continues to do so for over 33 years. There is a similar organization that has been listed since 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_(charity) Turning Point. Hunterdon Drug Awareness Program is also a registered charitible organization that serves a similar purpose as Turning Point (that being a social care organization helping citizens with substance abuse disorders dispite their ability to pay).

Keep. Finally there is a category of Substance Abuse Organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Drug_and_alcohol_rehabilitation_centers Where there are plenty of similar organizations, for example Phoenix House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_House who provide exactly the same services (substance abuse treatment) that Hunterdon Drug Awareness Program, and are not in talks of being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC) formatting modifications by Carrite, Sept. 30.[reply]

Guedde, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Guedde. May I make a couple of suggestions? Firstly, although this isn't strictly a democracy, it's considered bad form for a person to "vote" multiple times; I would suggest that you remove or strike out any duplicate Keeps- you only have to say it once. Secondly, on on wikipedia, notability of organisations is mostly determined by coverage in independent sources (often newspapers). If you could find more good coverage of the subject - preferably something that's specifically about it, rather than mentioning it in passing, or routine local news - then I would probably change my position from "Delete" to "Keep". This coverage doesn't have to be a newspaper, necessarily. bobrayner (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Bobrayner. Sorry about that, since this is really my first experience at this type of thing, I didn't know proper protocol, and I apologize for the bad form, it was not intended. I wouldn't want to delete or strike out my 2nd and 3rd "keeps" as they were separate arguments. As for finding relevant sources, the main source is the organization's website, and I didn't know if that was considered a legitimate source or biased one, since it is coming from the organization. I have called an editor at Hunterdon County Democrat and they stated they have articles on the organization that are not online and are filed in microfishe (sp?) storage; not available for public viewing. I will keep searching online for sources, but there's not a lot of press on the organization besides annual fundraising news, special event attendance, etc., none of which seemed really quotable/usable. I do believe there are a number of similar type organizations on Wikipedia, located on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Drug_and_alcohol_rehabilitation_centers. For example "Clean Scene" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Scene is almost the exact same type of company without threat of deletion occuring on its page. In fact that site even promotes the director's personal website, which I am certainly not doing with this organization. Sorry I am being long winded, but I guess I'm asking not to have a threat of deletion, but I guess something more specific, such as if you feel my citations are not good enough that I have to delete those. I would also like to know your thoughts on using the charitable organization's website as a citation. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's own website is pretty definitively not a reliable source, since it's bound to have a strong favorable bias. (Believe it or not, we've even seen cases where an organization's website listed it as being headquartered in a more fashionable city or suburb rather than the plebian actual location!) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orange Mike, thank you. I thought as much, which is why I have been trying to find other source material to document the organizations history and only quoted the organization by citing that is the place I copied their mission statement from. I've gotten a response back from an Editor from The Hunterdon County Democrat and asked him if he could find better source material regarding the information I cited in Hunterdon Drug Awareness's Wikipedia page. He stated he would get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find coverage that confirms it exists but there is no significant indepth coverage, just confirmations that this program exists. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes well if you just click the link above that says books, being listed in multiple national treatment directories would indeed confirm that it exists. It is not a program, it is a registered charitable organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- attempt to explain - the question is not whether the organization exists, but rather whether it is notable in any way; these directory listings are totally irrelevant to such a discussion, since Wikipedia is not a directory and does not exist to publicize your noble cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following is an article listing 2 additions to their board in 2009. The article is solely about the organization. It discusses the their board membership as of 2009 and discusses how the organization was founded. I'd like to know if this information is a better source, since it is talking only about the organization and does just "mention it in passing" which was an earlier concern. In-depth coverage?. Also this article HDAP budget shows the different budget resources used by the organization, such as state and county funding, fundraising, and foundation grants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - I was able to receive many articles on the organization from the files at the Hunterdon County Democrat. These articles were then made into pdf's and the description has been revised to include these citations. These new citations are almost all (except one about the organizations current budget numbers) focused on the organization and are not just mentioning the organization in passing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedde (talk • contribs) — Guedde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- response - those are not reliable sources; they are irrelevant to this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - I'm confused, how are articles from the local newspaper (which is really the only newspaper that covers the local organizations, not relevant to this discussion? I really am not trying to pick her, I am genuinely confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.241.104 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Sorry wasn't logged in on that last response. I looked at your link, and all the articles I posted appear under News Organizations, or the Hunterdon County Democrat News Organizations which your link lists as reliable sources. They have been scanned and posted on the internet as these articles were not kept online by the Hunterdon County Democrat.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Posillico[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of non-notable minor league jock. Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell he fails both points of WP:NSOCCER. Playing for a minor-league team in another country is not quite the same as representing your country in an international competition. bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL (see WP:FPL). Mattlore (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable; ATHLETE failure, GNG failure. Fails all criteria for sportsmen, unreferenced...--ClubOranje^T 06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. Hairhorn (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:35, 5 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KSG International[edit]

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

Non-notable local group; WP:COATRACK for some kind of infighting or gossip. Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is [41]; that site looks very suspicious to me - some kind of injoke or hoax? bobrayner (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards allegedly won come from places like the "New Jersey Mallu Times" and the "Journal of American Indian Medical Doctors" which seem to exist only in this Wikipedia article. 28bytes (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 September 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Volkova[edit]

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

Artist which does not appear to meet notability standards. It is virtually impossible to verify the information presented, as all but one of the references are in languages other than English, and that one does not mention her. Seeing as how this is English Wikipedia, we need some way for English-speaking editors to verify this information readily -- please don't say "Go have them translated," because that's simply not practical for our purposes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ARTIST has no language restrictions; a reliable source is a reliable source, no matter which language it's written in. WP:NONENG just says that if' there are english-language sources, then we should use those in preference to foreign language sources; it doesn't devalue foreign-language sources otherwise. In this particular case, I'm no great linguist, but I had a look through the sources and they do seem to have direct coverage of the person that the article is about. If it subsequently turns out that there are differences in meaning (ie. specific claims in the article don't fit what the sources say), then that's a content problem which should be fixed by correcting the content rather than deleting the article. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem here. Using machine translations, I just can't seem to find anything that addresses her in a relevant way. But that is probably due to my lack of knowledge of Russian as well. As you might can tell, this is not an AfD that I have very strong feelings about. It just appears that this artists does not meet notability standards, given what we can go on. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong on this, however. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I changed the reference of Nathalia Brodskaia's book; I put English version : Nathalia Brodskaia and Viorel Rau "Naive Art" ed. Parkstone International ISBN 978-1-85995-674-8

This book can be read at : http://www.all-art.org/art_20th_century/modern_art/Naive%20art1.htm

We can see 2 mentions about Elena Volkova :

I. Birth of Naive Art

3° chapter : Discovery - the Banquet in Rousseau's Honour

3° picture : Elena A. Volkova, "Young Girl from Siberia"

and :

II. Back to the Sources: From the Primitives to Modern Art

3° chapter : Naive Artists and Folk Art

11° paragraph : "Yelena Volkova came to painting at a mature age, but her creative imagination draws on her childhood memories, particularly those filled with the dazzling colours of the village fairs. Folk crafts were still blossoming in Russia in those days. Pottery, lacework, wooden toys and household articles, and so forth, were an integral part of ordinary rural life. Unhappily, today many of these traditions have been irretrievably lost. Yet aesthetic notions that derive from them continue to have some influence not only in rural districts but in urban areas too." --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful. You're making your case well. Let's let the discussion play out a bit more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like, Total Keep, Like. Live and Let Edit. 84.13.209.43 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination has no basis in policy and is flatly contradicted by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. I already pointed out that this rationale was a misapprehension in relation to an earlier PROD, but the nominator seems set on following his own ideas here rather than our policies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I patiently stated before, there simply isn't enough (maybe "wasn't" now) information that we can verify that confirms the facts supplied or establishes notability, English or otherwise. You can harp on this policy all you want, but there has to be a common-sense threshold where you have to be able to establish notability or verify facts for English Wikipedia without having to hire an interpreter. (And please tone down the snarkiness.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verified the two refs for the exhibitions, and they alone make her pass WP:GNG. Having had an exhibition in Tretyakov Gallery alone is no small achievement, and yes, the nomination is misguided. Suggest early closure. --Pgallert (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I could verify references which writen on Russian. Also I read this article and I can tell that this source confirm major portion of fact that have be written at article. P.S. Sorry if my English is bad.Синдар (talk) 21:57, 1 October 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) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Messenger (Heim & Jones)[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, does not meet WP:BAND; in particular, the discography apparently does not meet criterion #5. No sources, apart from a MySpace page. GregorB (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is about a small group made up of 2 living persons. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 00:40, 30 September 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jewel box baseball parks[edit]

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

This page seems redundant due to the section Baseball park#Jewel Box ballparks, which does a better job of describing what Jewel Box parks are and incorporates all of this information. Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep the info... somewhere - I agree, it's redundant. I think the info was copied into the other article, rendering it so. Be sure to look for anything that links to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be delinked through Twinkle. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for list. On the other hand the section in the main baseball park article could be transformed into an article. I am assuming that the info is correct and can be sourced. Sources should be easy to find. Baseball parks are a topic that authors and journalists like to go on and on about. No one ever lost his job writing about a baseball park. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now wait a minute - the list is basically already an article, with the section in the ballpark article being the same list except in a tabular form. If you want a separate article, how about renaming this one to something like "Jewel Box ballparks", structuring it like its copy in "Ballparks", and then replacing the copy in "Ballparks" with a link to this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that works against splitting it out is that the main article has several such tables in it. Splitting out just one of them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe other lists on that page could be spun out as articles as well. The main article on ball parks should give general information for readers, not lists of every possible subspecies. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that should be up to the Articles editors to decide, not AFD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands, the parent article is unreferenced an pretty long, so there is no reason we couldn't put a {{main}} tag on the section linking it to the standalone article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if more specific referencing is needed, I know of several websites that have a wealth of information on this topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BaseballBugs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 1 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic agriculture[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources unconnected to the topic. ^Bongo_matic 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have to let this squeak by given those two sources, and also since Nastati is cited at least once. I grant you readily it's thin, though: weak keep. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's significant enough in Italy and Greece as method of agriculture, adopted by over 400 farms. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:11, 30 September 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.