Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< 5 January 7 January >

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. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor and Jay

[edit]
Conor and Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to see how this group passes Wp:MUSIC - their only claim to fame is that they've done songs that have appeared in a few of the Grand Theft Auto games. (Sidenote - it's been tagged as possibly not meeting the notability guidelines since August 2008.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed as moot, article already deleted by User:NJA citing WP:CSD#A7. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist RME

[edit]
Artist RME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unreferenced BLP. See WP:ARTIST. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Isacovici

[edit]
Salomon Isacovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Salomon Isacovici does not appear to be of sufficient notability to justify the article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of edits, it also appears that there is breack of WP:SOC - not at all a reason for deletion in itself, but something to possibly to be aware of in considering the deletion (and, indeed, this discussion). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote, since I'm not a registered user. I would advise keeping this article, however. There are publishes sources written about him, some of which are quoted in the article, independent of the subject. Since he died over ten years, I don't think this article was intended as a memorial. I am not a sock puppet myself - I used to contribute as an editor, but I never edited this article during that time. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection to the individual, by the way, and no conflict of interest. Having just reread Wikipedia:Notability (people), I'd be curious to know where Isacovici fails to meet the criteria. Thanks, 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requirements for authors can be found at WP:AUTHOR. There is no evidence that Isacovici meets these criteria. I can find only one review of his only published work (here), which is included in what itself does not appear to be a particularly notable source. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that sources should be notable, but just that they should be reliable, which a book published by Routledge should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Biased articles do not get deleted. They get improved by adding reliable secondary sources so that any controversy can be described from a neutral point of view. --NeilN talk to me 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. — The Earwig @ 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Bryant Bulldogs football team

[edit]
2010 Bryant Bulldogs football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, no real context or other information.  fetchcomms☛ 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have page created for next football season. As opponents and other information comes out it would be added to the page. The Schedule should be released in the next few weeks. Dgreco (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Web Application Firewall

[edit]
Distributed Web Application Firewall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be original research. It is written like an essay, full of terms describing what a DWAF should be, etc, but not describing any actual product or technology. No searches on the web can find such descriptions of the technology, although several ads for such services can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Informative and non-promotional of a product. Do you guys really want to see product documentation here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAF Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — WAF Enthusiast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment No, not product documentation in the sense of a user's manual. But a concrete product description rather than a wish list of what the product should be. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author Thanks for the feedback WikiDan, I appreciate it and will add some product info.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team

[edit]
2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIR, no real context otherwise.  fetchcomms☛ 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:CRYSTAL. I see how some, like 2010 Florida Gators football team might be OK, but this article possesses little of the items present there.  fetchcomms☛ 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per no apparent reason to delete other than to make a point that one should wait until autumn to write an article. The 2011 or 2012 season I could understand, but later this year, no. WP:CRYSTAL applies only to speculative events that might occur. Every major college football team's 2010 schedule is already arranged. It's not as if they wait until the last minute to decide who to compete against next week. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. We tend to do current season articles on all major conference teams. And considering they are now in the offseason, this would be the current season article. --Smashvilletalk 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kentucky has just hired a new coach, assembling a new coaching staff with news coming out daily about high school athletes committing to play next year for Kentucky and coaches signing to coach at Kentucky next season. The schedule is complete and is firm, the returning roster and depth chart will be completed in March when spring practice starts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trocksuk4415 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per above. GoCuse44 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted in the first subsection of WP:CRYSTAL, scheduled future events should only be included if notable and almost certain to take place. The 2010 football season for Kentucky will covered by reliable sources across the US and, barring the university discontinuing its football program, is virtually certain to take place. In fact, preseason information, such as sourced information on recruiting, is already in the article. –Grondemar 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford G. Brody

[edit]
Clifford G. Brody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to address the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Searching Google News for "Edcomm Clifford Brody" only provides a limited selection of press releases and derivative articles. References in the current article are promotional or self published. I note that the article was created by single purpose accounts user:DSbs2009 and user:MeS2135, making it likely that this is a vanity résumé page. Ash (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiveOnDemand

[edit]
HiveOnDemand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:PRODUCT. No independent sources are given and a Google News search only shows press releases and derivative material rather than articles demonstrating notability. Ash (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obshire

[edit]
Obshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently a hoax. I can find no evidence that any such place exists, and the text seems highly unlikely. Anaxial (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmigration (novel)

[edit]
Transmigration (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Little coverage third-part coverage is given to the book: A Google search for "Transmigration novel J. T. McIntosh" (as another novel has "Transmigration" in it) turns up only bibliographies of the author. The article bears no mention of winning any awards and I can't find evidence of any. There are no reliable sources reporting this book has "made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" or "is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country". (both coming from WP:NB) Finally, the author is not tremendously significant. This article's author declined a PROD in late November. Mm40 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is inappropriate because the user Mm40 nominated this article for deletion without first addressing the need for deletion in the Talk page of the article concerned. When he went to the Talk page of the author of the article, he suggested editing was possible, and that would save it from deletion. But that is the wrong page to discuss editing. MM40 should have gone to the Talk page for Transmigration (novel) instead, where he would have seen that the author had suggested a redirect instead of a deletion. I therefore repeat my suggestion that there be a redirect instead of a deletion. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I did miss that. But I feel this is a better place to discuss this, as I doubt many people would have seen the discussion on the talk page. Mm40 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

André Thomas

[edit]
André Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This appears to be a vanity page at first glance, but then I realized the article was created back in 2006, when I assume our guidelines for biographical articles were much more lax. There have been no substantial edits ever since, other than fixing vandalism, bot edits, and removing NPOV-violating language. JBsupreme (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The subject falls under and is apparently notable by the WP:ENT guideline. (non-admin closure). Intelligentsium 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Taff

[edit]
Jerry Taff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Local news reporter who does not appear to have any type of measurable notability, except for being added to a "hall of fame" by his home town. Is there a notability guideline for news reporters? I cannot find one, and either way I do not believe that this is the type of biography we should be carrying. JBsupreme (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think there have ever been any clear guidelines about local media figures, but considering that Taff was a longtime news anchor in the fairly large Milwaukee market (in addition to his work in other large cities), I think we can keep this. It seems that his career was well-covered by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [2], so there is plenty of material to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question is this: has he received any coverage beyond his locality? It is not surprising that a local newspaper would mention him, especially considering that both WISN-TV (his employer) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have a close relationship. I am not sure that confers actual notability in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking quickly through Google News, I only see news articles from Milwaukee and Waukesha, WI, plus one from New Haven (another city where he worked). But I think the local stuff is good enough. My approach to such topics is this: if the local press only incidentally mentions the topic, then it probably isn't notable. But if the coverage implies that the topic is a "local legend", or something to that effect, then maybe it does deserve an article. I also think you need to consider the size of the metropolitan area in question. A local legend in New York is more important than a local legend in Joe, Montana. Now, Milwaukee isn't New York, but it's still a major city, so I think some Milwaukee-specific topics do deserve their own articles. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I originally put together the article after I noticed one on the similarly named Jerry Taft, a TV meteorologist in Chicago for the past 25 years or so. That article only has Chicago newspaper references. I would have no problem with deleting the article on Jerry Taff if there was some set common standard for local TV personality notability. I would also like to point out Category:American television anchors by city. Sacramento has 29, Philly 43, Indianapolis 26, NYC 171... if this guy's not notable, then I would presume most of these others are not as well.--BaronLarf 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WISN-TV#WISN 12 Personalities As an editor in southeast Wisconsin I can vouch that Jerry Taff is a local news legend, but an singular article about him isn't needed. As he spent the majority of his career at this station the redirect target is perfect. Nate • (chatter) 07:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it necessary to reduce this to a redirect? There's some good information in the article that would be lost. I don't mean to be a pain, but I'm worried about the kind of precedent this discussion could set - not only for articles on news anchors, but for all articles that rely mainly on local sources. Zagalejo^^^ 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I echo Zagalejo's thoughts towards the top of this discussion. Well established in a major metropolitan community by the "legend" remark - but the Hall of Fame clinches it for me. I've seen numerous articles on local television personalities in the largest communities and I see no reason not to include Milwaukee in that list. Royalbroil 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT which covers television personalities: Has had significant roles in multiple television shows..., he was on air in Amarillo, New Haven, Flint, and Dallas before Milwaukee [3] and Has made... prolific contributions to a field of entertainment, a 40 year broadcast career and 25 years as a news anchor is prolific enough for me. Wine Guy Talk 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabnock Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleos

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Trouble

[edit]
Tristan Trouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bass player for a tribute band, who also appeared on one episode of a reality television program. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. NJA (t/c) 09:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dienekes Pontikos

[edit]
Dienekes Pontikos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this individual is in question. Spring and Port Wine (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure why you removed the speedy, at the moment there is no claim to notability at all. Speedy delete unless someone comes up with something. Hairhorn (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, Hairhorn has a point - there is no assertion that the individual is notable. It's possible that something in the external link, which I note is not independent of the subject, might give an indication, but I'm not seeing it. If the subject were published in journals, or if there were articles in news media that discussed the subject, then we might have something. Again, no sources are apparent. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as containing no plausible assertion of notability, without prejudice to recreation. This is his anthropology blog going back to 2003—I dunno, but it reads like real anthropology. Is he notable? That I can't tell, but I'd like to give the author (or any later author) an opportunity to create an article credibly asserting notability in the future without immediate "speedy delete per deletion discussion" tagging.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC). EDITED TO ADD [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43774 this thread] from Stormfront (!) led me to this article by Pontikos, called "Against Arthur Kemp’s "March of the Titans: The History of the White Race." Any relation to the "Arthur Hemp" who created this article?[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-ones vector

[edit]
All-ones vector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-explanatory notion. Even though it's used in many books, I couldn't find any engaging in the pedantry of defining it, so a separate article seems unwarranted as a trivial mathematical WP:DICTDEF. Agreed to delete in this discussion at WT:WPM but deprodded by an uninvolved admin. So here we go by the book. Pcap ping 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: with Boolean algebras canonically defined. The term is used that article and Boolean algebras seem to be the only area where it's used in a non-trivial way. I suggest adding the definition to the Boolean algebras article even though the term is self-explanatory, if only for completeness. There is an article (Zhegalkin polynomial, also Boolean algebra related) that links to this one and it could just as well point to the a definition in the Boolean algebras article. The notation section can be deleted, basically there is no standard notation and an unreferenced list of possible notations has little value.--RDBury (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure a merge+redirect is necessary. You can clarify the target article without much need to include the rater opaque definition from All-ones vector: "The all-ones vector for a specific basis of a specific vector space is the vector with a length of one when projected onto each basis vector." I had to read it twice the first time to figure out what it was saying, but then, I'm not a mathematician. Pcap ping 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. This is going nowhere. If the redirect is reverted, feel free to renominate. If the question is whether FreePBX should remain a blue link, WP:RFD is now the proper venue. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreePBX

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
FreePBX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FreePBX is a graphical shell (one of several) for the really interesting product, Asterisk (PBX). It is not notable in itself, and the mentioning in the article on Asterisk is enough. Originally, I redirected it to Asterisk, but Fernbom2 apparently disagreed. Plrk (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Plrk (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what do you know. It has already had an AfD. My mistake. Could someone speedily close this? Plrk (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since that is the case, I accept the solution! Fernbom2 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dre McFly

[edit]
Dre McFly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an unsigned musician which does not meet notability. Based on the article creator's name, there is likely a conflict of interest. The article looked substantial but was in fact copied mostly from Wiz Khalifa including all the beefy references and futher reading. A search shows no coverage in reliable sources about this artists. Nor is there anything to back up the claim to having a #1 hit. Whpq (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest

[edit]
List of guitarists considered the greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Who is the greatest guitarist is point of view. Someone thinks its Jimi Hendrix and someone else thinks it's Duane Allman, and so on. There's no way of neutrally determine one guitarist's quality. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep But this is a well sourced article about those lists, a very interesting article. Maybe a rename to "Lists of ..." or some such. As long as it stays away from becoming a wikipedia list of the greatest guitarists then that is fine. Polargeo (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic of the world's greatest guitarists should be discussed in Guitar (or some article spun off from that), and these published lists used as sources. When someone reprints a published list (or even the top 10 of one) this is a rip-off of someone else's work, even if it might not be found a copyright violation in a court of law (although it could be -- this is not a threat. :-) ) Also external links is a great way to make this info available to WP readers. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, sources listed are reliable and verifyable, and the title "considered" makes it wiki appropriate. PamelaBMX 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamelaBMX (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, the article itself doesn't not define who's the greatest, it just provides brief information (and so does not violate the copyright) about other lists made by well-known publications, so it cannot be considered biased or POV. This well sourced article is not at all different than this or this so the request for deletion is not appropriate. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an article about great guitarists, not one about lists of possible greatest guitarist. Use the lists as reliable sources for the real article. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article for great guitarists will more probably risk the neutrality of Wikipedia than this article because we cannot create the criteria for one who can be considered "great guitarist", for the same reason we do not have articles like "Great US Presidents" instead of Historical rankings of United States Presidents. Grenouille vert (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change to "Lists..." -- this is apparently not an article about who is the greatest, but about various lists of who the sources involved considered to be. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment digital dream world is not notable. content is mostly about the guitar player and rolling stone articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's a big difference between writing about one's personal opinion about who is "the greatest", and making a record of the published opinions of others concerning who is "the greatest". WP:POV applies to the need to keep a neutral tone in writing. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. There should be an article Guitarist, in which these published lists are used as sources. I agree that WP should not give an opinion on which is greatest, only report what others have said. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree,. The article about guitar is about guitar. The article guitarist is about playing techniques and actually playing the instrument and notable guitarists. The guitarist article just need a tremendous amount of expansion and the lists will look more at home their than in POV seperate article with a name like "considered the greatest" which might I add would be rejected from any FAC if an article contained that level of subjectivety and peacocking.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm well at the least the Digital Dream Door is a more accurate list (but is this really a valid source anyway??)...... But such list are heavily biased towards the US and UK and rock. Add some respectable blues and jazz guitarist lists and it might balance it out a bit. But it is still the POV of the people who vited or magazine....I am just concerned where this is going, if we accept lists because of sources, how long is it before we have List of ice cream flavors considered the most delicious. It really is the same sort of subjective content I really don't think belongs in an encyclopedia....I understand how you think rather than it being our view it is published elsewhere and we are reporting it but this sort of content belongs in a magazine not an encyclopedia in my view..... An encyclopedia should cover facts not opinions or representations of opinions which is what these polls are.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These lists if deemed acceptable by the community should go in the Guitarist article I think. I've merged them as that article was pretty empty. I hope we decide to redirect this into the guitarist article as there doesn't seme a point in having a seperate article...But any list which considers Keith Richards and Jimmy Page better guitarists than guitarists such as Al di Meola or Santana (who both strangely are ignored by these lists) is a joke....Most influentual maybe rather than "greatest".....The scary thing is that Time magazine think Slash #2 and Keith Richards #4 LOL. Both are pretty average players in terms of ability or talent but have a big sound..... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOW keep. Not even the nominator believes this article to be worthy of deletion. BLP policy is about unsourced negative information; it is not a lever to be used by notable convicted criminals to keep their names a wee bit more obscure. No prejudice against a future nomination from someone who can provide an argument for deletion, nor against renaming to an event-focused article. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bloom

[edit]
Philip Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Philip_Bloom and a subsequent PROD, there are potentially controversial requests to remove this article on the basis of notability. This AFD is raised to discuss compliance with WP:N/CA more fully than PROD allows. If the consensus is that Bloom is not notable for his fraud activities in Iraq (as convicted) then the article should be deleted. Ash (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Virovkic

[edit]
Vladimir Virovkic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD, Serbian footballer with no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Also possible conflict of interest, as apparently being created by the subject himself. Angelo (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The claim to notability in the article is 4 appearances for FK Balkan Bukovica. First of all with no reference this is unverifiable so delete. Second marginally meeting WP:Athlete should not mean that an individual is automatically included (per guideline WP:BIO). I would still vote delete if the 4 appearances were verified, this is because this individual appears to have not really made the grade and is now playing football for an arts college in Iowa (we have to draw the line somewhere, if they had even a half season for a pro team this would be fine). It appears that the individual clearly fails the general notability guideline. Polargeo (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without getting into the question of players "marginally" meeting WP:ATHLETE, the Serbian club he is alleged to have played for doesn't actually play in a fully professional league anyway, so he wouldn't meet WP:ATHLETE even if his games for them could be confirmed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: If he indeed did play for his respective international team, that would satisfy WP:ATH by him competing in a "World Championship." On the other hand, this article definitely needs to be expanded. GoCuse44 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt; Only claims (unreffed) to have played U-16 internationally which a) is not a recognised age group for international tournaments (U17,20 and 23 are) and b) age group caps by consensus (at WP:FOOTY?) generally do not imply notability for football.--ClubOranjeT 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stevanovic

[edit]
Alan Stevanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Alen Stevanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alen Stevanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD, youth team footballer with no first team appearances in his career, fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you noticed yourself, it was not a competitive game. Friendly games often involve players who usually are not part of the first team, and sometimes even youth team players (even 15-year old guys, I could give you some names if you want me to), that's why they don't give notability. I could also mention of even a number of reality show winner from an amateur football team (the team was Cervia, the reality show was called Campioni) who had played friendly games a couple of years ago in the summer for Juventus, Inter and AC Milan. Or Gene Gnocchi, a comedian who used to play a friendly game for Parma at the age of 54 (not typically a footballing age). If the subject manages to play a competitive game later in his career, then the article can be recreated. --Angelo (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a 15 year old boy, or a comedian [4][5][6][7]. This guy is 19 years old on 7 January. He has just played for one of the biggest clubs in the world professionally playing alongside the captain of the Cameroon national team. He only signed for the club's senior side on the 1st January and he is already given an outing with the first team. Delete away and recreate in a couple of weeks if you like but that seems pointless. Polargeo (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And after getting to play with the first team in the friendly on 2 January he was then one of seven substitutes on the bench for the Serie A game today [8]. Polargeo (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, currently fails WP:ATHLETE guidelines as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage beyond the odd WP:NTEMP match reports and stuff. Recreate if and when he satisfies any of the above criteria. --Jimbo[online] 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, now passes WP:ATH. --Jimbo[online] 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my links above. He clearly meets the general notability guideline. Polargeo (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to qualify for notability, a player must actually take part in a game. Stevanovic merely sat on the bench, and therefore still fails WP:ATHLETE Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly he did play a professional game (although it was a friendly). Second and more importantly he meets WP:GNG even if he is only marginally meeting WP:Athlete Polargeo (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friendlies are not sufficient of meeting WP:ATH. As noted previously, trialists/youth/randoms often take part and in the wider WP:FOOTY community are deemed not noteworthy. I don't see any sufficient media coverage that passes WP:N, just WP:NTEMP standard issue references about his move to Inter. --Jimbo[online] 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have obviously not convinced you of the wisdom of my arguments. I think I am accutely aware that this is Inter Milan and at his level he would probably walk into the first 11 of any US soccer team. I have copied this to user space and will simply create the article when he achieves the even higher standards which you are demanding. Polargeo (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now meets WP:ATH after debut for club in a competitive match Steve-Ho (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the Inter Milan official website says "Stevanovic's first contribution is an inch-perfect through ball for Pandev" a good start! Polargeo (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not waste your time, he made his professional debut during deletion process. I can made 100 example of "first teamer" that had first team shirt number but failed to made a professional debut, especially for Internazionale. Matthew_hk tc 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in fairness to the nominator, he was with the club for nearly a year before making this debut, so he wasn't necessarily clearly about to make an appearance--ClubOranjeT 21:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas

[edit]
Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research, POV fork of Boy Scouts of America membership controversies Alecmconroy (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(Someone wrote to only write only here, but the majority of the material is in the discussion section of the article.)

So, we have a subject "Just what ARE the policies and practices of this multi-million person organization regarding atheism, homosexuality et al? " which is noteworthy, of interest to many and which had neither actual coverage nor even a title or heading in Wikipedia until this new article was put up. And then we have an article who's title (the noun) is "controversies", which right from the start defines it's content as POV material. And who's content, on the policies topic, mixes in much factually wrong information about BSA policies in those areas, mixed in with inuendo about non existent policies. Such is inevitable for an article who's title is "controversies", not only a POV magnet, but who's defined subject is material which is inherently POV.

The policies are written and available for viewing, and so it is a matter of FACT what the policies are. If someone asks you what the first sentence in the book "Tom Sawyer" is, such can be factually answered by looking at the book. You might say that it's a bad sentence, or a vague sentence, but it is a matter of fact what the sentence is. The same goes for BSA policies. One could take issue with them, or say their wording is too vague, but it is a matter of FACT what they are. But some folks would rather continue the process of vague wrong inuendo about what they are rather than have people see what they actually are.

So, an article comes along which actually covers the topic of what the policies are, and with a title that matches the content. With the article still being in it's FIRST DAY OF EXISTENCE, the other half of the article (enforcement or lack thereof) contains information that is not yet referenced. But in all of the flurry of writing on this, NOBODY HAS EVEN MADE ONE CLAIM THAT ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT.

And now some claim that the "controversy" article which, after all of this time, still has factually wrong and occluded coverage of the topic, and a title that doesn't even match it has "dibs" on the "policies" topic, to the extent of preventing coverage of policies in a "policies" article.

And THIS article is a candidate for deletion?

As much as I respect and value Wikipedia, if you look through Wikipedia, the system really breaks down when it comes to contentious topics...those are a mess and soapboxes everywhere, with the system being gamed in numerous ways, including use of rules opposite their intended purpose. It would certainly be a travesty if actual coverage of this notable topic were kept out of Wikipedia by a combination of people who want and work to keep it from being actually covered, plus persons who innocently misapply the Wikipedia guidelines in a way that is more granular, myopic and categorical than intended and written.

It would certainly be a sad day for Wikipedia's and it's reader's loss if such would prevent accurate coverage of this notable topic, and even prevent existence of an appropriate title (that matches the content) to cover it under. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the policies were 100% clear and not open to different interpretations there would be no controversies, the policies would sit quietly in the Boy Scouts of America article, and all would be sweet. We all know that's not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that if a policy affecting millions of people is unclear, (or, as some would say, really bad) it should be kept inaccurately covered, hidden in an article with a different title where clear coverage can get killed off or occluded as "off topic", not be covered under a title that matches the subject matter, or kept secret? North8000 (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It should sit in the "Boy Scouts of America" article and nowhere else. But it isn't clear, it does create controversies. So other articles evolve. HiLo48 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, (except what about size issues making it go separate?) which is a different argument than others are making which is essentially that policies should only get covered in a "controversies" article. In fact, based on what I just read today, claims that base article content should be covered (and only covered) in a "criticism of" type article (as many of the "delete" peoplel have said) are themselves in violation of Wikipedia standards for such type articles. Which reinforces your point. But it seemed a little big and heavy to put into the main BSA article, and, in those cases, it is a common and accepted Wikipedia practice to create it's own article. I've seen lots of unsupported claims of instead calling this a "Content Fork" and "POV" with NO specifics to support any of those claims. Or, to put it in a different way, calling it a "content fork" from a "criticism of" article which Wikipedia standards say should not even have this material in it. In short, a "fork" from a mother "prong" in the "controversies" article which Wikipedia standards say shouldn't exist.
I guess that the two things that make it bigger are:
Putting in the (operative parts of) the policies themselves instead of paraphrasing/summarizing them. Paraphrasing/summarizing can be POV, but more importantly, is fuzzy enough so that people can wrangle forever over it, trying to lobby for their POV paraphrasing
My attempt to describe actual practices of enforcement or non-enforcement. Although very hard to do to Wikipedian standards, this is a noteworthy ("whats really going on at BSA regarding this?") topic that a lot of people want information on. Some of what I put in was hard referenced facts (e.g. "the court cases on this are:....") which are just pieces to begin building an understanding from. Others are (at least on day 1 of the article) admittedly yet-unreferenced summaries based only on accumulated knowledge, and unreferenced as of day 1. But I think that at least most or all of the latter are uncontested, or at least nobody has contested any of them. They could be either referenced or taken out later by editors. But someone (implying Wikipedia practice or rules) "archived" and froze a main discussion section of the article on day one of the article's existence, and, implying Wikipeda rules, wrote that the discussion section of the article should be shut down on day 1 of it's existence and that the only discussion should be about potential deletion. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • North8000, you keep saying that Boy Scouts of America membership controversies should not exist, is against wikipedia policies or needs fixing. This article is a featured article, although of course that can change. Do you not think that more experienced and wiser editors than you have looked at this article in detail against wikipedia policies and guidelines? You also keep saying the topic is notable. Policies are not notable. Who notices them in reliable sources? They only fit in wikipedia in the context of the controveries. The main problem, to me, is that an article on policies has to rely on primary sources from BSA. Who else would notice the policies and write about them accurately? We can not have an article that relies entirely on primary sources. However that does not mean they can not be used elsewhere. The controversies are widely noticed and sourced so we can have an article. It is necessary to know about the policies in that article, so primary sources can be used there. You are also picking the policies you want to match the controversies. It does not, and indeed could not, cover all BSA policies. So your article is a content fork and a bad one too. It can not be rescued. Finally, your pro-BSA POV is pretty obvious. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BDuke,
Regarding the "controversies" article, without addressing it's numerous problems obvious from it's discussion section, and that it's current review for removal of FA status, my main point of the moment is that, per Wikipedia standards, nobody should be claiming that a it (a "criticism of" type article) is even THE place (much less the only place) to cover the material from the main article on the main topic which it is a "criticism of". And thus that such claims in this section are contrary to Wikipedian standards.
Second, you also sidestepped the point (e.g. via the "first sentence in given Tom Sawyer" example.) that if the question what the BSA policies are, and the policies are written and published, that such is, by definition, and reliable answer to that particular question. A second source would be easy (someone to say " I read them, and this is what they are" but, I would submit, unnecessary in that particular case. So second sources would be trivially easy, if someone wanted them.
I am not picking the "policies I want". The only "picking" is that they are in a controversial area (and finding EVERYTHING possible in that area) and are related to membership and leadership. Basically, per the title.
Finally, one the "personal POV" assertion, ad hominem attacks are meaningless; the article must be accurate and objective and NPOV. For the record, my feelings are undecided, and I am a member of one of the groups most "attacked" by the BSA policies, but I am adamantly opposed to "witchhunt" tactics which, as a part of their tactics, seek to mis-inform and suppress information. In other words, start by getting the accurate facts out, in a venue (Wikipedia article) which will assure that only the facts stay in the article.

North8000 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 - When I said that the policies should only be in the Boy Scouts of America article, that was in response to your hypothetical scenario of them being clear, concise and easily and consistently enforced. It's the fact that they don't fit that description that causes the Controversies article to exist. Your new contribution is built around an attempt by you to say that the policies ARE clear, concise and easily and consistently enforced. But they're not. The article is built on a falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Dear HiLo48 Why don't you look back at what I did and didn't say?....your statement is totally wrong on that. I NEVER said (or hypothesized) that the BSA policies were clear, I NEVER said or hypothesized that they were easily or consistently enforced. (in fact, the article essentially said the opposite) I primarily said that such are important and noteworthy topics that should be covered, and have not been covered, and, prior to this, did not even have an article or article section in Wikipedia to develop such coverage under.North8000 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the misunderstanding. My concern now would be, exactly who will be the arbiter of what goes in the article? I really can't see such a nebulous subject working in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and, of course, accepted. My thought is that the scope definition (the title plus the first two sentences [which would hopefully stay "locked in"]) together with Wikipedia standards would guide this nicely without any single arbiter. I certainly don't plan to play any strong hand in this, other than keeping the scope statement from expanding. In short, the title will set it on a good course, without need of an arbiter.
I think that the scope is certainly not nebulous (at the expense of having longer and slightly awkward title wording). And/ although the policies themselves are nebulous with regard to several key terms, I don't that the topic of what the policies are is nebulous. (i.e. the article has non-nebulous quoting of nebulous statements  :-) ) On the other aspect (enforcement or lack thereof) it could develop to a certain point with concrete material, supported by references. But to take it beyond that would require summaries/ generalizations which admittedly could be nebulous, or, at least hard to support with references. I confined the latter to what I think are uncontested areas. I think that any unsupported generalizations in areas that are contested would not survive.
On the other hand, trying to characterize what the overall practices or "attitude" of BSA (this multi-million person diverse organization which is centralized in some respects and decentralized in others) would be very nebulous, if not a fundamentally flawed concept. The "controversies" article has already gone there (and I would say, quite badly). THIS article has a scope which includes a few pieces of that puzzle, but which rules itself out from completely going there.
Sincerely,
North8000 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the one who originally asked North800 to host the sandbox, I think that the title needs to exist in order for actual coverage of this notable topic to occur. And that the article is a good start. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BDuke. Here is just one thought, without trying to provide the overall answer. This new article is about the subject which is the object of the entire subject of "criticism of" article (the "Boy Scouts of America Membership Controversies" article.) Unless one tries to claim that the object of the criticism is not notable, but the criticism of it is, then the notability (and continued existence) of the entire "controversies" article is dependent on the subject of this new article being considered to be notable. Or conversely, the (continued) existence of the "criticism of" article, if valid, establishes the notability of the subject of this article. Whew!......simple concept that needs not-so-simple wording to express it.  :-).
Please read the link I gave you. The Nutshell there says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". It is all about sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the policies. The criticism is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The policies have not. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia standards say the "criticism of" type article is not THE place for coverage of the object of the criticism.
75.24.138.102 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this said? Also the object of the criticism is largely the effect of the policies on people. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is inherently of the action that caused the effect, or of the alleged "perpetrator" of the action, not of the effect. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on comments above in response to BDuke's thoughts, some of the answer is in comments already made. First, to provide context, on day one of it's existence, some people pounced on this article, nominated it for deletion, "froze" a part of the discussion section, and, implying Wikipedia standards, stated that the entire discussion section of the article should be shut down. That, including the diversion of energies to a "potential deletion section" is, of course slowing down the development of the article. Addressing the "coverage in reliable secondary sources", one could say that attributes of subjects divide them into two categories regarding this. The first is the policies themselves. As the policies are available in writing from BSA (whether they be good, bad, vague or specific, followed, not followed) the answer of the question of what they ARE is an objective fact which, by definition can be answered by citing the policies. I would think that in rare specialized cases (like my "What is the first sentence of Tom Sawyer?" example), the primary source would be sufficient, and that secondary sources (i.e. somebody else reading the policies and reading them and them saying what they) would be inherently less accurate. That said, I have no objection to (or control over) inclusions of secondary sources....in fact I just added one myself. In the rest of the subject (current BSA implementation and enforcement of these policies) the availability of reliable secondary sources is relevant and extensive. I just put in about a half dozen of them in last night myself. And these are not of the type of the most cited reference in the "controversies" article (the "BSADiscrimination.org" website) (I guess that counts as objective and reliable). These half dozen I put in last night are the actual main documents from the prominent court cases which of course, in each case, include the court's summary of the facts relevant to the case and it's decision. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are sources. It doesn't change the fact that the article is already duplicating a lot of what is in the older Controversies article, and it still seems likely to me that the original author created it with strong POV intentions. It adds nothing but confusion to an already existing topic. I wrote elsewhere about obfuscation by BSA. The addition of all the words in this article is simply more of that. It has already become too big to be a simple explanation of "the policies", which actually highlights part of the basic problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my note here and addition of references, I was responding an an earlier assertion by someone that secondary sources are not available, and to BDuke's statement and question which was: (I added the question mark to the question):

"The Nutshell there says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". It is all about sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the policies?"

Per Wikipedia, "criticism of" articles are offshoots from the article of the subject which they are criticism of. It doesn't, hasn't and shouldn't try to "take over" the coverage of the subject of the criticism. As you look through both the current state of affairs and the histories in the "controversies" article on the "coverage" of this topic, you will see that it is of unstable POV paraphrases or summaries of the policies, obfuscated in other "controversies" wording. Such is inevitable in an article titled to be about "controversies" rather than the subject of the controversies. A title and a structure to support objective coverage is essential. This a notable, sourced topic which needs to be covered under a title of it's subject matter. In Wikipedia content structure, it is an offshoot of the main Boy Scouts of America, covering material that would and should be covered there if it were not for length.

So, dry, referenced, factual coverage (that has had NO specific POV challenges) can be vaguely accused of being POV, while people lobbying to have it covered and covered only in a "controversies" article, contrary to Wikipedia standards for a "criticism of" article, and under sections not even so-titled is NOT POV? Respectfully, something seems reversed in such comments. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it very difficult to understand what you are saying here. It is however clear that you (and your friend) are the only person who has this view of the "controversies" article, of which this is clearly a fork. I have asked you this before and you did not answer, so could you give us the source on wikipedia that you are using to get Wikipedia standards for a "criticism of" article? Many people have looked at that article, and while, like all articles, it needs improvement, they do not think it violates any wikipedia standards. Your article on the hand does as is explained above. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bduke I'll answer the latter and then the former. You are suggesting a "head count" standard, which is contrary to Wikipedia deletion discussion guidelines. If it were not, I could get lots of people to write. I would rather stick to a discussion based on the merits and standards.
No, I am not suggesting a head count. I am merely pointing out that you as a relative newcomer seem to be saying that it all the rest of us who are out of step. Perhaps you do not have enough experience here. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second, a glance at the "controversies" article, it's instabilities, it's discussion section, and FAR status indicates that many people (myself being one of the many) have many complaints that it's content violates Wikipedia standards. However, I am NOT saying that it should not exist, nor that it's mere existence violates Wikipedian standards. So that is a red herring argument. I am merely saying that it should confine itself to it's subject, to the guidelines for "criticism of" articles, and that, doomed by its title, after much time, it has absolutely failed to cover the subject of this new article accurately or to Wikipedian standards, not that an article of a different title should be expected to do so. And that persons should not try to exclude coverage of other topics not in it's title, say it has exclusive rights to cover topics not in it's title or proper scope. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not answered my question. I am asking for you to give a specific link to the wikipedia guideline pages that you are using to learn what violates Wikipedia standards for "criticism articles". You are claiming that the content of the criticism article "violates Wikipedia standards". Where are these defined? A link, please, so we can discuss details (not here, but on the talk page of the controversies article). I am asking this because I know of a lot of guidelines that have a bearing on this, but I do not think any of these guidelines support the notion that the controversies article violates them. Your article however does violate guidelines on:
POV - it has a clear pro-BSA POV.
Notability - the news sources do not address the essential core of your article that is the policies; they address the controversies, so should be for that article. The key sources are all BSA sources and thus primary.
Original research. You are deciding what to include. How are controversial areas determined, when this focuses on policies not the controversies themselves?
I am now going to drop out of this discussion and leave it to the closing admin. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BDuke On your first question, I'll go find it again and reference it. (I think that it was in the "Fork" article/section, I'll go look for it there.
I've heard vague claims of POV, but no specific claims. I believe that the article, even as originally put up was very NPOV. Now it's a combination of work by other editors, with changes (by those with differing impressions) that we're discussing in the discussion section.
Regarding your specific "Notability" topic, it now has secondary sources in both areas. In the narrow / rare case where the question is "what are the BSA policies", I would think that published policies(a primary source) would by definition, would be the best source (again, a narrow, rare case). For example, if the question is "what is the first paragraph of the US Declaration of independence", I would think that this is a rare case of the primary source (the declaration) would be definitive. A secondary source would be finding someone who read it and answers that question. But, I have no objection to secondary sources in even that area and included one. And in the other area (practices) secondary sources are very essential and already included, even though the article is still in it's first few days of existence. Regarding notability in general, these affect millions of people, are enclyclopedic, give the "controversies" article a basis for existence, and and have no article (or even section title) for coverage elsewhere in WIkipedia.
I think that there are probably still a few sentences in there of OR in controversial areas. The discussion section addressed getting those identified and out of there. Regarding inclusion / non-inclusion, the only thing that I am a proponent of is it's scope statement which is:
"This article covers membership and leadership policies of the Boy Scouts of America in areas where, for any reason, significant controversy has arisen. It also covers current BSA implementation and enforcement of these policies where such coverage provides additional insight into BSA's current practices in these areas."
I picked 4 areas where I felt there is controversy. If another editor adds a fifth or sixth that's fine with me. And, if there was a strong consensus that one of my original 4 areas has no controversy, I would have no problem with one of my original 4 areas getting removed.

North8000 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BDuke Regarding your first question, as promised I checked and the subject is covered pervasively (like in at least 6 places) in two Wikipedia standards articles: Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Criticism.

I linked the two articles for you. A very brief comment. The first is a guideline and as the nutshell says "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject". A different stance is exactly what you are doing. The second is an essay, not a guideline, and is not binding. However it does not suggest the controversy article to be inappropriate as it expanded out of a section in a large article. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While those seem to raise the question of whether or not the "Controversies" should exist, I am not questioning or dealing with that. But what I think is said multiple times in those two articles is that "Criticism of" articles are spinoffs of the main article, should have scope that is clearly stated and limited to the "criticism of" content. I feel that such such clearly repudiates claims made in this deletion discussion. IMHO, those wikipedia standards say that the "controversies" article should not even be covering the object of the controversies, much claiming the right to exclude coverage of the object of the controversies elsewhere. If you think of it, to do so otherwise would be unthinkable. Imagine a "criticism of President OBama's programs" article claiming that any President OBama program which it covers criticism of is not to be covered elsewhere as a program! IMHO this refutes claim that this can be considered a is a fork from or duplication of the "controversies" article.

BTW one could raise the question of whether or not this new article should be a section of the main BSA article. I felt that it would be too long and heavy for such, considering the scope of the original article (a 100 year old multi-million person organization). Wiklipedia standards dictate that a summary of or reference to this article be put into the main BSA article. But as indicated in my "origination notes" I indicated that I was going to wait a little (including for contributions by and input from other editors) before doing that.

North8000 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North is clearly now wanting this article to cover practices, as well as policies. That's NOT what the title says, and it's where those defending BSA consistently retreat. Whenever a nasty bit of policy is highlighted, they defend with "Ah, but in practice we don't do exactly that." That a nebulous, weak, and blatantly POV strategy. It's a huge organization. It will always be possible to find a practice that contradicts a policy, when it suits the defenders. Either this article sticks to policies alone, or it goes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HiLo48 Not that I would fight the idea of a "policies only" article if you would support it, but I think much would be lost and we should talk about it first. What you describe is certainly not my motives. And, in fact, I would think that persons critical of the Scouts in these areas would would want such coverage. The thinking could be "well, BSA doesn't officially ban xxxxx, but I'll bet there's an unofficial ban on xxxxx, let's see what their actual practices are in relation to xxxxx." What I had in mind for practices (which Wikipedia standards would enforce) would be "cut and dry" references to practices, primarily enforcement activities, many of those being court cases. Also any cases of denied membership, removal from leadership positions, or expulsion from Scouting based on these. Preferably based on the current policies, but maybe going 10 years back before the current policies. I'm sure that persons critical of the Scouts policies or actions in these areas will find and include whatever cases of enforcement that meet Wikipedian standards that they can. Now we have the right place for developing this coverage. And then what is and isn't in there will provide information to help the many seeking info in this areas to draw their own conclusions. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supremacy 1914

[edit]
Supremacy 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:SOURCES: Non-notable web game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The only third-party source is a nomination for an award by an otherwise non-notable review site. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently took a look at this entry and hope to be able to find more, or at least better, sources. In common with many on-line games, there are numerous entries and reviews of the game on the web, but these are obviously not published sources, still less peer-reviewed, so in Wiki terms their value is limited. However, it is in the nature of games, and especially on-line games, that it may be difficult to establish 3rd party sources (see the entries on RuneQuest and Combat Mission which although useful and informative appear at a glance to have no 3rd party sources or on DEFCON (video game) which has a couple of old reviews in obscure games magazines) or notability (see the discussion on notability on OGame). On the award nomination, it seems a little hard to condemn the review site as non-notable when other equally non-notable (in Wiki terms) on-line review sites are used as sources for other games listed on Wiki.
In my view the article is useful, not least because the game beautifully produced and is rare in on-line games in dealing intelligently with an historical conflict with a degree of realism. At this point, I would welcome your suggestions, given the difficulties you have raised, as to how best to address them. The entry is not, I think, intended as an advertisement, and the game is of genuine interest. Londoner1961 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Sources seem good enough for this kind of thing. It did receive a "game of the year" award. I was very pleased and surprised to see that the article was so short and just gave the basic information. I expected it to go on and on like most game articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it was nominated for a "game of the year" award on a site where anyone can vote. This isn't anything close to an award given by a reputable gaming site with any sort of editorial control. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have emailed the editors of a couple of relevant and Wiki approved game review sites to see whether they would consider the game for staff review. Perhaps we could hold off on any deletion decision for a while until I hear back from them? Londoner1961 (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be noted that rather than mark statements as needing citations and adding the appropriate notices above the lead, Wyatt has been nominating the article for deletion, whilst also deleting nearly all the page. Dared111 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article has been marked for sources for 6 months now, which is generous in my opinion. I looked and found no reputable sources about this game, which is a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and so I've requested that it be deleted. In the meantime, I have also removed material which violates copyrights and other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on verifiability, not truth, not a free-for-all site where people can write whatever they like and hope that someone else will come along and source it later. If this game doesn't meet our notability requirements, it should not be here, plain and simple. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure about the ethics of canvassing review sites, just so that the game can have an encyclopedia entry. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new source I just received an email response from the editor of a respected and Wiki-approved wargame site who said: "That’s an awesome find. Thanks for the tip! I have just the WWI fan on my staff who will be eager to check this out. The world could use another good WWI game." So I have hopes that there may be a proper review soon that we can use as a source. Londoner1961 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and sourcing are notoriously tough to establish for online games. Rather than rehashing the arguments, I would suggest looking at the notability and Afd discussion on OGame which covers this ground. In the case of Supremacy 1914 there are numerous sources, the question is whether they are valid, but by online standards they seem good enough. And as noted above it is likely that there will soon be a review in a Wiki-approved source. So I would suggest holding off for now and revisiting the issue in a few months.Londoner1961 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB calls for "multiple non-trivial published works", not a single source that is "likely" coming in the future. WikiProject Video games/Sources lists some very good sources with reputable journalists/authors, editorial control, and so on. I'm sorry, but none of the sources talking about this game are like that. Maybe that will change in the future, and I'd be more than happy to bring this up at Deletion review if and when that happens. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of those sources listed on WP:WEB there are only two that are relevant to this game. Of those, one has expressed great interest; the other appears to be defunct as an email to the editor has bounced back. Again, I would suggest a look at the OGame discussion page as all this has been gone through previously. Londoner1961 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Closed as SNOW keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apoldu de Jos

[edit]

This article is only one sentence long. What really is the point of it? This and many of the other Communes at the bottom of the page also only have one sentence. I personally do not see how these articles are really necessary at all. Therefore, I believe this one, and probably the rest of the small Commune articles, should be deleted.  T24G  15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before you embark on such experiments, let me throw in a couple of issues: all the info on a village can easily fit into an article on a commune, and the redirects were mostly done with that in mind (where there was ever any info on the village worth preserving, it was preserved in the article on the commune). As I have explained at length whenever the Romanian wikipedians here expressed an opinion on the matter (and generating consensus in the process): the village is not an administrative subdivision of any kind, and, if anything, functions as an informal section of a commune, when the commune itself only hosts thousands of inhabitants at best. No matter how much one would expand the article on a village, the info would still not be too much not be featured nicely in the relevant commune article; the opposite will result in articles which either say the same thing or of which at least one is forced to remain a stub (the commune article, which in that scenario would only say "x commune has w, y, z villages"). All of the info would be segregated along impractical lines. That's why.
  • (The few villages that were turned into articles in the pasts were almost in all cases absolute rants with no sources, so there really isn't anything "lost" here.) Dahn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
are you then saying that the Romanian "village" is not an administrative unit, and does not have any governmental role? I remind you we are not bound by what other Wikipedias may choose to do -- the concept of notability is not the same in all Wikipedias. Nor can those working here on one country have a consensus that is at odds with the community more generally. "What can fit into other articles" is not a negative criterion here. Can you find some examples where AfD supported your view of this? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne nicole de castro

[edit]
Anne nicole de castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? Couldn't find any refs. Chris (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie K

[edit]
Katie K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:PORNBIO; no significant coverage, no major awards or repeated nominations for major awards. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joost Platje

[edit]
Joost Platje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every academic should have his own article. He has done no special research or findings. The user that started this article, started it before on the Dutch version of wikipedia where the article has been deleted for the same reasons. Knowalles (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al McClellan

[edit]
Al McClellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. The sources currently quoted fail to address notability and being appointed to head coach of a college is not of itself a demonstration of notability. Using Google search [15] I find an obituary but again this does not contain any new information to demonstrate sufficient notability for a biography article. A merge of any unique information to the college page may be suitable. Ash (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In the United States, college basketball is big business, although perhaps not to the same degree that college (American) football is, and there may already be articles on most of the leading American college basketball and college football coaches - not quite inherent notability, but something close to it. Al McClellan is from an earlier period, but even then basketball coaches were fairly important people. The Los Angeles Times ran a UPI obituary of him, which suggests that his reputation was more than purely local. I checked the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov , thinking that he might have written a book, but I didn't find any listings for him as an author. And I have some questions that I am unlikely to find answers for: Was he notable as an athlete before he became a coach? Was he also an academic? He died in a veterans hospital. When and where did he serve in the military? What else did he do? - Eastmain (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is always a little harder to demonstrate for those that died a couple of decades ago or more due to a lack of on-line sources (I also find no mention of him in Google Books even in sports books by others). If no other significant achievements are highlighted in his obituaries then it is unlikely that any will pop up later. Certainly if his military service was notable it would be mentioned in any decent obituary. Generally I have difficulty believing in a case for considering all American college basketball coaches as notable by default unless you can point to a prior consensus on the matter.—Ash (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't say that all college basketball coaches are notable, but Boston College and Providence College are both reasonably well-known Division I programs who frequently appear in end-of-season tournaments, so I'd be OK with having comprehensive coverage of all their coaches. McClellan's obituary ran in the LA Times, which suggests some level of nationwide recognition. And I'd be very surprised if there weren't other sources available offline - only a fraction of newspaper articles from his era are listed at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It depends on the college. Boston College is a major school. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sense of the discussion is that the subject hasn't received enough meaningful coverage to be notable according to our guidelines. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisham Law Centre

[edit]
Lewisham Law Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability isn't clear. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:CLUB. WP:LOCAL suggests that some local topics can be merged into the most appropriate settlement article, which in this case would be London Borough of Lewisham, however it is not clear why a general reader would benefit from inclusion of this material. Most communities have some form of Citizens Advice Bureau. And CABs have been going a lot longer than this place, and are still going, so its notability is rather unclear. Contested PROD. SilkTork *YES! 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pussy Pauline

[edit]
Sweet Pussy Pauline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like the prod removals were vandalism, but erring on the side of AGF, I'll bring it here. No sources, seems obviously unencyclopedic. Only source is unconvincing. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Roe

[edit]
Matthew Roe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Heaven's Fire Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Stallions and Mules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Macabre (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Soldalto E Pedina (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Fighting for Life: Teenage Opinions on US Civil Rights (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Mafia: The True Story (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Remedy (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating a youth filmmaker, his independent film company (not clear if actually incorpoated), and his movies: I have found no evidence of notability; the "Vollie Award" he won seems to be from a local public-access TV station, not a significant award. No other signs that these entries meet WP:NFILM or related guidelines. EDITED TO ADD: needless to say, these articles are all autobiographical, but for proof see this diff.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn' t mean to belittle local access TV, since I realize a lot people do a lot of work on them. I was merely trying to correct a prior comment that the award was from a local PBS affiliate, which is a different thing entirely. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to all. There IS an IMDB page, I have no idea how I missed that the first time around. There are three films listed, with video. But my vote to delete stands. This filmmaker is not notable. Evalpor (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Zed

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rajan Zed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable WP:BIO, already deleted in February 2007, recreated in violation of WP:RECREATE in July 2007. Apparently a Wikipedia:Autobiography. See article talkpage for more details. The one bit of notability this is based on is the "first Hindu prayer read in the United States Senate". It is of course perfectly fine to mention this in the Hinduism in the United States article, but it is clearly not sufficient for a biography article on the person who happened to read that prayer. WP:COI accounts are Rajanzed (talk · contribs), HBoulette (talk · contribs) and 75.14.204.8 (talk · contribs). dab (𒁳) 11:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I think the individual's notability, weak though it may be, is verifiable, and we have sources that verify it. But the rest of the article is vaguely autobiographical-sounding, with some weasel words (I didn't know we had a "dubious" tag!) and some other issues. If we copyedit down to the core notability claim, it's a three-line stub article. Which works, if that's the consensus, but the COI issues raised by the nom are troubling. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, we don't have any sources on Rajan Zed as an individual. We have lots (80k!) of google hits about the "acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed". The reason for this is that this guy is a spammer, and the Wikipedia article is part of his campaign of self-promotion. Nor am I the first person on the internet to note that this man is on an all-out narcissistic spamming-spree [16][17][18] But we do not have any independent references about Rajan Zed. We just have media coverage on the first Hindu prayer in the US senate, which is WP:DUEly covered at Hinduism in the United States and nowhere near what would be required for a bio article. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But even that was preceded by another priest at a joint session of Congress in 2001. So, while technically correct, the statement within the article portrays the topic incorrectly. The statement was added in this edit by an IP who was spamming many articles with this. And yes, delete, this doesn't pass WP:BIO, BLP1E at best. -SpacemanSpiff 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • amazing. All this hype about the "historic first Hindu prayer" turns out to be a fabrication. The historic first Hindu prayer was read to the joint Congress in 2000, and Zed was only the first to read a Hindu prayer to the US Senate sans the House of Representatives, six years later. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of this article will be not be very wise as it will question Wikipedia’s credibility and raise doubts about its religious neutrality. Rajan Zed is one of the most prominent leaders of Hindus in the world, besides being renowned for interfaith dialogue. Just try searching for “Rajan Zed” on Google, Bing, Yahoo and you will see thousands of hits. Just on Bing, it shows 701, 000 hits, and many of these are from the prominent publications worldwide, like New York Times, and in various languages of the world. Why the allegation of self-promotion when almost all the religious organizations and religious leaders of the world have either media-relations people on their staff or they outsource it to public- relations/communications/media-relations companies. Moreover, criticism (right or wrong) of a leader of such a high stature as Zed is almost certain. Actually, Wikipedia should enlarge this article to cover all of Zed’s achievements after thorough search. This link gives Zed’s brief bio: http://www.asianamerican.net/bios/Zed-Rajan.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.66.140 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • please see WP:RS. There are thousands of google hits on Rajan Zed because Rajan Zed spends much time generating google hits. What we are looking for is independent coverage, not press releases, not to mention online spam. Rajan Zed is not "one of the most prominent leaders of Hindus in the world", he is not a leader of Hindus at all, he is a Hindu American who likes to issue press releases about himself. I get 176 hits on google news. All of these are just about stuff Zed "said" in random press releases about random issues loosely connected to religion. Now see WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Emphasis mine. In a report including the statement "Rajan Zed said that India's youth looked up to the cricket players as kind of role models"[19] Zed is not the subject of the report, the subject being a sex scandal surrounding some cricket player. We do not have a single independent source which has Zed as its subject as required in the notability guideline. Still looking at google news, subtracting those hits containing the modest self-designation "acclaimed Hindu statesman", I am left with 24 hits, most of these unnotable outlets like "Digital Spy", "Merinews" or "Gaea Times (blog)". The dozen or so remaining hits from quotable news sources simply concern the US Senate prayer, which is already duly mentioned at Hinduism in the United States. The asianamerican.net link you cite does indeed have Zed as its subject, but it is not independent. Asianamerican.net is a website that invites "Professionals, entrepreneurs, business owners, scholars, and others who are United States citizens or permanent residents with Asian ethnic backgrounds" to submit their biographies. It follows that the biography you point out was written by Zed himself and accepted by asianamericans.net based on his being a US citizen or permanent resident with Asian ethnic background, which is hardly sufficient to warrant a biography on Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, it also has Zed's hallmark "acclaimed Indo-American and Hindu statesman". Mr. Zed also has the gall to decorate his biography with "He is listed currently in Wikipedia" after he had personally created said listing himself. How full of yourself can you be? Mr. Zed quite apparently has no idea what the word "statesman" means, nor does he seem to be aware that "acclaim" usually implies acclaim from third parties, not acclaim showered by oneself on oneself. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Zed is highly respected Hindu leader at world stage. Removing article about him will be a big loss for Wikipedia. He was invited by President of European Parliament (EP) for a meeting to discuss Hindu issues and promote interfaith dialogue during European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (EYID), which was the first major formal visit of a Hindu leader to EP during EYID. Various other world religious leaders who visited EP as part of EYID include Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, Dalai Lama, Grand Mufti of Syria and Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. This is just one thing among many of Zed’s achievements. In addition to wonderful work in various aspects of Hinduism, little research will tell you about Zed’s remarkable efforts in the areas of inter-religious relations, Roma, environment, etc. Please consider augmenting this article to mention his multidimensional activities to bring the world together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.186.74 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Mr. Zed. You wouldn't believe how many people I've met who thought they were somebody important because they once shook the Dalai Lama's hand. Fame doesn't propagate by handshake. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I attended an annual event at the Durga Temple in Virginia where several prominent Hindus received rewards. Rajan Zed was one of them. The others were from Europe and India, so it wasn't just for American Hindus or a program created by Mr. Zed to give himself an award. The event was considered important enough to be covered by an Indian TV station. HBoulette (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Berlin Flight 2450

[edit]
Air Berlin Flight 2450 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable incident in which an airliner that had a rejected take-off and then overran the runway in snow, no injuries only minor airframe damage. Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH guideline and article had been prodded (and supported) for same reason MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No deaths, no injuries. TouLouse (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suggest we keep it for a bit longer until the investigation is complete due to one reason. That reason is that there have been 3 incidents; all of which were runway overruns and involved the Boeing 737-800 aircraft, there may be a connection, there may not. That's why I suggest we keep it until further information is released. Zaps93 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. If it turns out to be part of a connected trend then this should be mentioned in the aircraft type article as it still wouldn't justify a series of separate articles on each one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There certainly seems to be some kind of security flaw with these planes and I sincerely hope there won't be any fatal incidents in 2010. However, there is a trend, there was plenty of press coverage [20] (even if only mostly here in Germany), and it did cause Dortmund Airport to be closed all day. Jared Preston (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I said above only three days ago... There seems to be a trend! Yet another B737-800 falling off the runway. Jared Preston (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Probably more to do with the bad snow and ice in Europe at the moment perhaps they should be mentioned in European winter storms of 2009–2010, still doesnt make this one event notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although bad weather was a factor in Kingston, snow certainly wasn't! :) But seriously, how common are runway over-runs in Europe during winter for airliners? I honestly don't know. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, WP:AIRCRASH now provides alternatives for writing a separate article every time something out of the ordinary happens on an airplane. Last year at this time [21], WP:AIRCRASH was kind of an inclusionist's wish list that excluded nothing. Some common sense reforms were made in September, and most such incidents can be mentioned in the article about the airline, the airplane or the type of accident. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion of a design flaw appears itself to be flawed. An aborted takeoff, an overrun on landing and one plane that slipped on ice long after it landed during taxi (not an overrun at all) are hardly likely to be related. as to concerns about regularity; it happens often(ish) without snow and ice, so there will be more with more ice. Here in the UK we like to everexaggerate the effects of snow in the media (preferably in London, which gets far less snow than most of the rest) and we were regularly reminded a Cypriot passenger jet managed a similar slide this time last year. There are things like arrestor systems being developed and implemented; some incidents may become case studies for those but otherwise they have no real impact rather than add to the dail list of closed runways. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to document-oriented database. This seems to have most support here. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSON database

[edit]
JSON database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. Poor quality article too. -- samj inout 10:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, as nominator has withdrawn. I note that a lot of the "keep" arguments are extremely weak and indeed might have backfired given the canvassing. Nonetheless, consensus, as determined by policy-based arguments among established editors, is to keep the article at this point. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redis (dbms)

[edit]
Redis (dbms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. -- samj inout 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to fix that section. Swillison (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" feels relevant at this point Swillison (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Redis is notable and important — I've heard of it, and I'm interested in learning more about it. I know a lot about CouchDB, so it'd be interesting to see some objective information about Redis. avi4now (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One the major key-value stores; part of an important development in database technology. Definitely notable. Tnm8 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redis is great and as amazingly fast as it claims. I used it for a recent project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.39.75 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article in Linux Magazine confirms that coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist. A bit of research will undoubtedly turn up some more. 81.151.173.41 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A very new open source project, likely to become more relevant leader in quickly developing, and increasingly important field. The Ohloh https://www.ohloh.net/p/redis page indicates a "Large, active development team" over a short [history]. Suggest removing possibly contentious performance claims and postponing deletion given this is an emergent topic and independent pages such as this are useful fora for gathering evidence against vested interests of large incumbent vendors -- User:psd —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Withdraw: Ok the article's improved, advertising's been removed and it's been tagged appropriately. Furthermore, a bunch of people seem to care about it so it's unlikely to end up being wikicruft... as such I'm withdrawing my nomination and we'll see where it goes from here. -- samj inout 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: BSD licensed free software (yes, I understand nom already withdrew) Samboy (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the original nomination has been withdrawn, can we officially record the issue as closed for now, so the 'Candidate for Deletion' box can be removed? Tnm8 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there is still one delete vote besides that withdrawn by the nominator, an administrator will have to close it after a week passed since the nomination. Pcap ping 12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I Google for the link http://code.google.com/p/redis/ I get 215,000 hits. No reason to doubt this software is notable. I look through the results of a search for "code" "Google" and "Redis" and I find over a hundred thousand hits. The one at Code Monkey seems notable.[29] Dream Focus 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and obvious keep. This is getting crazy with this deletion mania! This article is well cited to numerous prominent sources, and is well written about a notable project. LotLE×talk 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been improved a good deal and yet there is still only one or two questionable references, hardly "well cited to numerous prominent sources". -- samj inout 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No inline citations, and only two references. Perhaps this DBMS is a challenger for MySQL, but there is no way to tell from this article. Supporters should include at least three inline citations in the article, and not just mention them in this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While AfD is not cleanup, an AfD may be an incentive for other editors to do a cleanup. This happens fairly often when the article is tagged for rescue, as this article was, but not always. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GT.M

[edit]
GT.M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. -- samj inout 10:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If the software were so verifiably notable then one would think it would be easy to find references on the Internet, no? I'm not too fussed either way but if there are dead tree references then they're no good if they're not actually referenced. -- samj inout 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This product is alive and well - I know because I manage it and we have an active team of developers who put out major releases regularly. http://fis-gtm.com redirects you to the home page. http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm gets you to the project page at Source Forge where you can download it under the AGPL v3 license and where you can see that it has a multi-year history of active releases and has been downloaded thousands of times. Notable uses of GT.M include a couple of the largest real-time core processing systems live anywhere in the world running the FIS Profile application. As the technology platform for FIS Profile, GT.M is the legal system of records for tens of millions - perhaps over one hundred million - bank accounts around the world. It is the platform for FOSS deployments of VistA, the health care information system developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and increasingly used outside the US Federal Government system. There are deployments of VistA on GT.M on Linux live at hospitals and clinics in the US and Mexico, and the Kingdom of Jordan is deploying electronic health records for the entire country using VistA on GT.M on Linux. There are production sites running GT.M in mission critical applications with aggregate database sizes in the Terabytes. Uses of GT.M are a matter of public record. User:bhaskar 02:51 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess the Gartner MQ would qualify as an independent award of sorts so this is perhaps the strongest argument yet. I'm unconvinced the size/shape/quantity/etc. of users is relevant. -- samj inout 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the news sources found. Dream Focus 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep due to massive noteability and importance. Article has been substantially improved since the nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see substantial improvement since the nomination. The references I see are trivial, PR, or directories. This meets my personal deletion criteria that articles must be written to reliable sources. I will AGF that the rollouts of this software in multiple large organizations meets some undefined state of notability and the rest of the article (such as example functionality) can be verified.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chordless

[edit]
Chordless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in reliable sources. -- samj inout 10:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, after I created the article I realized that the project probably is not notable enough. I don't actually agree with the notability critieron (I find all the non-notable subjects on Wikipedia to be a great resource), but I realize that I have to play by the rules. However, perhaps it could be merged with/appended to the Chord page? //zond
  • Comment notability is another topic for another day, and while a hybrid solution (like hiding non-notable articles from search and preventing linking to them from others) would be cool, don't hold your breath. We have limited resources and it's important they are focused on making what we have trustworthy. Iff Chord is noteworthy then a merge sounds sensible. -- samj inout 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as G11 Advertising. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PANTHIRUKULAM original art

[edit]
PANTHIRUKULAM original art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, I couldn't find a speedy tag for this, but it's definitely not an encylcopedia article. I think it's an advert, but I wouldn't say it was unambiguous. Chris (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shell

[edit]
Matthew Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just working with mildly famous people does not make you notable, methinks. Chris (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCRIPT (journal)

[edit]
SCRIPT (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable magazine with a single published issue Josh Parris 09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true we're a new journal just starting out, but we're getting a lot of attention in the asemic art world.24.234.119.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleCDN

[edit]
SimpleCDN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to promote SimpleCDN. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases and partners that do not count as reliable sources. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daspian Blade Dancer

[edit]
Daspian Blade Dancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have been a mistake. FFMG (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 NJA (t/c) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Content in Jewelry

[edit]
Gold Content in Jewelry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be redirected to Gold#Jewelry author keeps reverting redirect. Author is also affiliated with company referenced by article. Original article was an advertisement for company called "in Gold We Trust". ttonyb (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sherwood Pictures. Consensus is that there should not be an article here, but that the title should remain a bluelink. Feel free to merge any sourced content from the article history. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courageous (film)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Courageous (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strong delete - Having read WP:NF, this film seems to fail notability guidelines. The film currently is not even in the stages of casting, and there is little or no mainstream coverage (the only sources significantly covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it, other than that, it only has trivial coverage, such as a page on BoxOfficeMojo with no significant details). Notability within a niche group does not equal mainstream coverage, and because the film is not even in the stages of casting, I would say that alone fails WP:NF. This article is essentially a promo for an upcoming film, and has no encyclopedic value.

The last AFD was only commented on by about 7 users (most of whom were active editors of the article), so I'd like to wait this AFD out and get a more objective consensus.

In addition, I'll be keeping my eye on this article for more promotional spam (such as trivia about it's number of "Facebook fans"). Thanks.SuaveArt (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, for reasons stated in the last discussion. First of all, you said, "the only sources covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it"; this is incorrect. Please view the sources to WALB, KWTX-TV, WFXL, The Oklahoman and Box Office Mojo (this last one is about Fireproof, not Courageous, but relates to it). The "religious" sources are to some of the most famous and reliable news sites that deal with Christianity; The Christian Post, the Baptist Press, Christian Today and Charisma magazine (notice: they are all reliable sources with Wikipedia articles). None them are affiliated with the film, as you incorrectly said. The topic of failing WP:NF was dealed with in the last AfD, and I'll quote myself from there: "This is not a conventional film, and really isn't notable as a film and its principal photography. It is the centerpiece of Christian film, and had a worldwide announcement that anticipated thousands of people and brought dozens of media outlets to a church service. The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG)." I'm fine with the Facebook number of fans being removed; I only added it because a news article stated it. Strong Keep, and this AfD was unnecessary. American Eagle (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

First of all, you said, "the only sources covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it"; this is incorrect. Please view the sources to WALB, KWTX-TV, WFXL, The Oklahoman and Box Office Mojo (this last one is about Fireproof, not Courageous, but relates to it).

I said little to no mainstream coverage outside of religious sources. (The sources you sited above are extremely trivial, passing coverage). I've seen other articles on unreleased films with the same amount of coverage be deleted.

The "religious" sources are to some of the most famous and reliable news sites that deal with Christianity; The Christian Post, the Baptist Press, Christian Today and Charisma magazine (notice: they are all reliable sources with Wikipedia articles).

I never challenged the notability of those sources, but that's a separate issue. For example, just because TMZ (a notable source) mentions that Carrie Prejean has a pornographic video on the net doesn't mean that it deserves an article. I think a mention of this film in Sherwood Pictures is sufficient.

And like you said, these sources are notable "within the 'Christian' community". Since it has little real coverage outside of these sources, I'd say that it doesn't meet guidelines for general notability (if the article didn't include these Christian blogs as sources, it would only be 2 or 3 sentences long based on the mainstream coverage it gets).

None them are affiliated with the film, as you incorrectly said. The topic of failing WP:NF was dealed with in the last AfD, and I'll quote myself from there: "This is not a conventional film, and really isn't notable as a film and its principal photography. It is the centerpiece of Christian film, and had a worldwide announcement that anticipated thousands of people and brought dozens of media outlets to a church service.

That "explanation" is purely POV and inaccurate as well. "Centerpiece" of Christian film is simply your opinion of what the film will be (objectively, if I had to pick a film for that title, it would be Passion of the Christ or even The Ten Commandments). The same with "not a conventional film" (define "conventional" - that's purely opinion, especially since the film is [i]not even in the stages of casting[/i] and has not released any plot details!).

Your statement about the film's "worldwide announcement" and "dozens of media outlets" is also grossly exaggerated, seeing is it no mainstream coverage outside of religious sources except for passing mentions.

The film clearly fails WP:NF because it is not even in the stages of casting. If you're only counterpoint is "well I think it's going to be an 'unconventional film" then that isn't much of an argument, especially since no details about the film have even been released.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG)." I'm fine with the Facebook number of fans being removed; I only added it because a news article stated it.

I disagree, but that's what this AFD is for. No need for you to be defensive if you really think the film's worthy of inclusion. But the fact that you've insterted promotional content such as "facebook fans" into the article (which would easily be removed from any other film article) makes me think that you're more interested in promoting this film via Wikipedia than establishing true notability. When this film is released, if it does as well at the box office as Fireproof did, then maybe it will warrent an article. As is, I think not.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to some of what you said above, but it's so cluttered I may get lost. For one, the Facebook fans source said, "The film already has more than 8,000 fans on a Facebook fan site." The source was to Nebraska City News-Press (which, I'll add, is another one of the mainstream sources that have reported on it), and is clearly a reliable source. Looking back, I'll agree that it's not very encyclopedic information (I'm fine with removing it), but I wasn't simply promoting the film. On another note, there are dozens more sources available (such as the Nebraska City News-Press; not a Christian website) which can be added. I may do that in the future (if I have time), but it appears there is enough to establish notability.
As far as "centerpiece of Christian film" and my POV go, I somewhat agree, yes. It is my opinion. You could make a case that The Ten Commandments/The Passion of the Christ are, but those were released 54 and 6 years ago, respectively. Ask any Christian filmmaker their opinion, or just look at news articles on it. Yes, it is opinional, but it is a widespread and general opinion. "Worldwide announcement" is somewhat exaggerated, but "dozens of media outlets" isn't. See this source that says, "More than 60 media outlets will be there in ten days when the Kendrick brothers announce their next venture." That isn't a Christian news site either. (Why was that information removed?) American Eagle (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources you mentioned (such as a passing mention in a local newspaper) don't assert general notability (as for the WALB source, it was out of date - it referred to an upcoming event that hadn't occurred at the time the WALB article was published - in order of that statement to be accurate, you'd need to find a source published after the event occured). And no, it is not a "wide-spread and general opinion" that this film is "the centerpiece of Christian film" (considering for one, that most Christians haven't even heard of it, and second, that statement is completely unverifiable, opinionated, and encyclopediac (especially considering that casting has not even begun for this film and the plot isn't even known). I'm starting to wonder if this film would have any notability at all if it was not for this unnecessary article.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "passing mention in a local newspaper"? It is certainly not. It is a 25 paragraph (some short paragraphs) article solely about the film. That is not a "passing mention". Okay as far as WALB goes. Please go ask a Christian if they've heard of Fireproof or Facing the Giants. I'd guess that 9/10 American Christians have heard of/seen them both, and Courageous is the continuation of it. If you don't believe me, ask some. Regardless, I never wrote it in the article, so it doesn't have to be "encyclopediac" (why does my opinion need to be encyclopedic?) This has nothing to do with the film; it's just my opinion that it is the centerpiece. Reliable sources + verifiable information = notability. That's my view. American Eagle (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This film has already garnered plenty of publicity and notability, enough that people would probably look it up on Wikipedia. It'll have an article on here sooner or later anyway — there's no reason to kill the article only to have to rewrite it later, especially when there's useful information already in it. Filmcom (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're argument is "it'll have an article on here sooner or later anyway", then that just proves my point. --SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I'm saying that the solution to every problem on Wikipedia is not to delete content. It's to improve it. This film is notable enough to warrant an article; it has more information, external coverage, and sources than any article in Category:Film stubs. Filmcom (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NF clearly states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". There are multiple reasons for this, including WP:Crystal, the difficulty of writing from a WP:NPOV when critics have not yet seen the film and responded, and inherent lack WP:VERIFIABILITY of information about pre-production films. An article on this can be created if the script is ever actually filmed. Locke9k (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sherwood Pictures. Some of the material from this article can be included there for the time being. As Locke9k points out, the film is not eligible for an article of its own per WP:NF because it hasn't started filming yet. Once filming is confirmed to have started, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. That it is a religious film is irrelevant. It does not meet the basic requirements for future films: principal photography has not been started--in fact, they don;t even have a cast. It might be notable , but it would be clearer to show that after it is released. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - While I can agree with the editors supporting "Keep", WP:NF undeniably states that films that have not started principal photography should not have their own article. However, since there are going to be people looking for information on Sherwood Pictures' next film and Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to help people find the information they are looking for, I support a redirect to Sherwood Pictures. The information in the current article could be saved as a subpage to work off of when an actual article is necessary. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; I agree with American Eagle Invmog (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - People will be searching for this film title here. Redirect it to Sherwood Pictures and reliable information in this article can be incorporated into the Sherwood Pictures article (if it already isn't). Seregain (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Flandern

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially the result of a running battle between User:6324xxxx and User:Mikevf both of whom appear to be accounts which exist only to fight over this page. Despite recent inpout from other users it seems very unlikely that a useful article will emerge from this and so I nominate it for deletion. Artw (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After review of the Wiki:AfD page, I don't see how your two points above meet the guidelines for nominating this article for deletion. However, for any interested parties, there is a proposed revision of the TVF article on his talk page for comment and review. Akuvar (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Van Flandern passed in January of 2009. Akuvar (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus was that the subject did not meet WP:PROF, as only one of the six participants felt that he did. The other keep vote felt that the subject weakly met WP:AUTH, but I considered this argument to be sufficiently rebuted in the discussion. Rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Fawell

[edit]
John Fawell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a run-of-the-mill professor. I can't find any significant impact that he has made in his field, nor can I find significant mentions of him in reliable, third-party sources. He has won an award, the Peyton Richter award, but that appears to be handed out by his college and not of the national/international scope required by WP:PROF. ThemFromSpace 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS cites are 3, 3, 2, 2. That seems to be all. Not remotely enough cites to pass WP:Prof (minimum numbers required are usually around 500), particularly for somebody who works in the area of pop culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep Three academic books is enough for notability . GScholar counts do not work in the humanities,, at least for recent works, where references are very slow in coming. Better to judge on the basis of the views of the referees for the publishing houses., Weak keep only, because they are not the very major publishers. His books are in 207, 329, and 125 WorldCat libraries, which is another good way of judging importance. Needs a check for reviews of them, which would show notability as an author regardless of wp:prof. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched Worldcat and the web for a while, but could not find any third-party reviews of Fawell's books. As noted above, the citation record is also rather small. There is nothing else in the article indicating WP:PROF notability (such as journal editorships, awards, etc) and I could not find much else at the Boston University website. He does not seem to have a personal webpage there and the only page I found was from the college faculty info[36]. There is also something that looks like an interview with him in the Boston University newspaper about one of his books. [37] In a case like this I would want to see more than just the library holdings data for demonstrating WP:PROF notability. Nsk92 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis of WP:AUTH rather than WP:PROF: three books that could plausibly be of general interest, each held in a reasonable though not large number of libraries. However, I tried and failed to find reviews of the books and I think he does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can his creative output be "significant" per WP:AUTH if no reviews of it can be found? ThemFromSpace 06:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Alliance

[edit]
Interstellar Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this can be more than a dictionary definition. Examples could be added, but what purpose would that serve? It's such an obvious, self-explanatory idea that there isn't much to say about it. If somebody has published some kind of in-depth literary analysis about interstellar alliances in science fiction I would change my mind, but I doubt that's the case. To be more policy-based about it: I don't think secondary sources exist about this topic.Prezbo (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wiktionary, as a dicdef - and as to why do it for a fictional subject, it's been used by multiple authors in different fictional universes, so it should be acceptable, as it is not proprietary. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there are secondary sources discussing this, it would only be in the wider context of political ideas in science fiction, since an interstellar alliance isn't significantly different from an interplanetary or intergalactic alliance, or even an alliance between different species on a single planet. I don't think the term is even suitable for Wiktionary; see "Idiomaticity" in Wiktionary's "Criteria for inclusion". EALacey (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Producer Pro

[edit]
Music Producer Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged {{notability}} since June. Unsourced, doesn't seem to be notable. A cursory web search gives reviews that are actually splogs. Article exists solely as a part of a coordinated affiliate marketing spam campaign on Wikipedia and its creator (Foztee (talk · contribs)) has no other edits outside said spam campaign. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to environmental issue. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental vandalism

[edit]
Environmental vandalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN and WP:NEO Webley455 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Not the strongest case for notability, and I'm not ecstatic about some of the rationales offered to keep the article, but it can't fairly be said that the case for deletion is so strong as to require closing this discussion against the numerical consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Power

[edit]
Niagara Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur baseball team in an amateur league. Was previously deleted (via WP:PROD). I cannot find that they won any awards, have been mentioned in sports almanacs, or had any news articles written about them (though you should expect that their results may be published as for most amateur teams). No significant coverage by reliable sources Peripitus (Talk) 22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Merely being an amateur baseball team does not make the subject lack notability. Precedent is found in the pages for comparable leagues (Cape Cod Baseball League, New England Collegiate Baseball League, Coastal Plain League) which have a page for each team, despite being amateur leagues like the NYCBL. As for the news articles, I don't know which means you used to search, as I found an abundance with a simple Google News search. I used one as a source in my edits to the article and here are links to several more. (Civic Issue Pertaining to Team, with mention of team, Team "Help Wanted"-Type Need, promulgated by newspaper, Team's move to Niagara, Individual Game Coverage, More Individual Game Coverage, Feature on a team player) This seems to satisfy the "significant coverage by reliable sources" issue. The team's significant press coverage (which I have just demonstrated) satisifies WP:GNG- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
Would the most appropriate target be the Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant ? Peripitus (Talk) 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only significant part is the advertising, which is already covered in the company article. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Miller (mattress retailer)

[edit]
Larry Miller (mattress retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable retailer. Of the five refs in the article, one is to his company website, one is to his own blog. There's a brief mention of him in this LA Times article, but he's not the subject of it; the Furniture Today story is about the company, not him; and the only things that comes near substantial coverage is this article in Smart Business mag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gameana

[edit]
Gameana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable something, can't even tell exactly what. No sources for this. Was deprodded. Pcap ping 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

[edit]
Paramahamsa Nithyananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Sada

[edit]
Ruben Sada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After preforming a rough translation of this article, I found that this article contained many claims, which were not sourced. Also, this article may not meet the general guidelines for notability Tarheel95 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Assertions of "deletionist mania" are not particularly strong, and the other arguments in favor of retention don't address the nominator's concern. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOEModel

[edit]
LOEModel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable business method or some such. All sources are primary from the same author. Zero google books hits. Pcap ping 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the primary sources are peer reviewed, as are the vast majority of academic works. I still don't see secondary sources though. Pcap ping 17:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The model of an organizational LOE hypothesizes that an organization transitioning through an organizational change initiative will experience a loss of stability that results in the exhibition of symptoms that are predictable, measurable, and can negatively impact the overall effectiveness of an organization. These symptoms include: decreased productivity, decreased morale, decreased motivation, increased conflict, increased absenteeism, and increased turnover. To me, this seems to be saying that if you mess with people's routine, they don't perform as well. I am not convinced that we need a neologism to convey the substance of this discovery. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Magazine

[edit]
Museo Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Museo Publications, LLC.

Reference given does not confer notability. Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion and seems to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. Hu12 (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhpQuery

[edit]
PhpQuery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gminutes

[edit]
Gminutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources I can find for this software are PR releases. The claimed award seems utterly obscure. Pcap ping 01:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bonilla (baseball)

[edit]
Henry Bonilla (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player. Career 4.66 ERA, 61-71 record...nothing notable here. Alex (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put too much into his being a free agent... lots of minor leaguers are free agents now.. would be better to wait till April and to see what team he winds up with... Doing all these minor league afds in the off-season is silly since they will all mostly have teams come spring. He is currently playing winter ball in Venezuela. Spanneraol (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two-time minor-league All-Star, in both the Midwest League and the South Atlantic League. Probably also worth noting that by reaching AAA, he's become the most prominent and successful player to ever come from El Salvador. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:47, 4 January 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) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I couldn't find where it says that. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Dreams

[edit]
Silver Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The album itself may have been canceled and remains unreleased but there was a single released from it which became Branigan's very first club hit. This means that it is notable due to being Branigan's "big break" as it were, and also the beginning of huge success. The article's content is sourced with suitable references and could easily be expanded to cover more information about the single. Dell9300 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kailashananda

[edit]
Swami Kailashananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ten Sharp. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way Of The West (Ten Sharp song)

[edit]
Way Of The West (Ten Sharp song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NM : no chart, no award, no cover version, no coverage. PROD contested with this comment : "It is an official release and a important release in the developement of Ten Sharp. Because it is not a really known single, it is even more important to have it available on wikipedia." Europe22 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and merge if desired) song to artist per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'd support the same for all of this group's other singes, which seem no more or less notable than this one.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ten Sharp, there is not sufficient coverage for this song to warrant its own page. J04n(talk page) 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Filipe Torres

[edit]
José Filipe Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. almost seems WP:AUTOBIO. no significant coverage of this individual [38]. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. Looks like WP:ARTSPAM and I haven't found any sources to establish notability. Giving an interview on nation-branding.info and a quotation in Forbes are a good start, but they don't amount to "significant coverage" of Mr. Torres yet.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iteya.com

[edit]
Iteya.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Barely asserts notability. Sources only mention company in passing, or in a trivial way. Non-notable company. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The Consumersit isn't exactly the paragon of fact checking or editorial oversight, and it's mentioned by way of a link that a bunch of readers sent in. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediavision

[edit]
Wikipediavision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty neat.. but hardly notable.. fails WP:WEB. Suggest moving to project space to preserve.. (eg. see Wikipedia:Semapedia) -- Ϫ 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Conder

[edit]
Robert Conder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely obscure actor, fails WP:ENT. —Chowbok ☠ 09:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Shacklett

[edit]
Johnny Shacklett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There actually is a GNews hit here, but it's an extremely passing mention in a 1973 Milwaukee Journal issue. I can't find any information on the DownBeat Magazine article supposedly about one of his recordings, but even if I could I don't think it would meet WP:MUSICBIO: "multiple non-trivial published works." I wouldn't oppose recreation if more can be found, and I'm willing to believe there might be more for a seventies-era jazz musician, but as it stands I'm afraid the article doesn't pass notability.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Paris

[edit]
List of consorts of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paris has not ever been the sort of entity which has "consorts". The Merovingian "kings of Paris" are called such out of convenience. They called themselves kings of the Franks, but since the Franks had several kings at one time, ruling from different centres over different territories, it is convenient to label those who made their main seat Paris the "kings of Paris". That's all. It is misleading to go from this to "queen consorts of Paris". The rulers of Paris under the Carolingians were styled "counts" often, but they did not have consorts in this regard. Then the list jumps from 1007 to 1864! Srnec (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so does the list of Count of Paris! If you know your history the title was revived in the 1864 for Prince Louis-Philippe Albert of France after over 800 years of disuse! And what is the wife of a count? A countess! People will regard these ladies as countess no matter if they used the title in their lifetime or not. Same with Queens of Paris, obviously they never used the title (that can be added as a sidenote), but it would be of "convenience" for them to be called that since their husbands' ruled from the city of Paris, and there is still their counter-parts in Soissons, Reims, and Orleans.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" The list makes an interesting read, and would be unreadable if merged with other articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a second there, I thought the article was going to be about Paris Hilton's love life. Googlemeister (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The titles comes Parisiensis and comte de Paris have less in common than at first appearance. They do not designate the same office or rank. And do you really believe that the fact that few of the women in the list ever held the title "Queen of Paris" or "Countess of Paris" is an irrelevance that can be relegated to a sidenote? Seems highly misleading to me... Srnec (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Joint & Other Scribbles

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jump Joint & Other Scribbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Electro

[edit]
Death Electro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musical genre that's apparently subtly different form of electronica... I'm not sure. There's a domain by the same name, and apparently a band on myspace. I don't know if those are connected to this, but I didn't see any use of the term that would indicate it's widespread as a genre label. Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Light participation makes it difficult to discern any consensus at all. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory feedback network

[edit]
Regulatory feedback network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic "regulatory feedback network" seems to be a neologism (or repurposed phrase) due to Achler (the phrase is also used generically in many sources, not in the sense meant in the topic of this article), who also created the article based on his recent articles. There are no secondary sources that use this term in his sense, as far as I can find, so no evidence that the concept is notable. Probably the concept deserves a paragraph in neural networks or some such place, not an article. See the talk page; the cited "secondary" sources do not seem to mention "regulatory feedback network" or anything similar. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy & The Boys

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nancy & The Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_January_6

Leave a Reply