Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 12

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 14/User:Jeffreylin2000/Enter your new article name here

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RubberNut Bob

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

Possible hoax, If not, the subject isn't notable. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- probable hoax. If not, it's certainly unverifiable anyway and should go. Reyk _YO! 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research if not a hoax as there are no online stories on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Snow delete as a probable hoax, not to mention the only Ghit is the article itself (and RubberNut Bob "is a celebrity where I live"? Come on!). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the way, speedy deletion is for blatant hoaxes, not probable hoaxes. This is indeed probably a hoax though, but is at any rate unverifiable and fails to meet general notability guidelines, lacking significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources).--Beloved Freak 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:HOAX. I tried to at least fix the format of the article, but once I got to "When the nut is busted open a condom pops out," the believability of this story all but vanished. So, I checked online and not only does it not get Google News, J-Stor, etc. results, the only three regular Google results even are all related to this article. Thus, it is almost assuredly a hoax and even if not is not something of any importance as we have nothing to verify it beyond the article creator. While we WP:AGF, we do not do so at the point of being naive and even so we need at least one non-Wikipedic source. As there are no other uses I could find of this name in fiction or otherwise, we can safely redlink this article for no merge or redirect locations exist. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke or urban legend. The term gets only two hits on Google: this article and this AfD. (Maybe I ought to write an article about a similar old joke, about a guy who tried to cross an abalone with a crocodile. He was hoping to get an abadile, but instead he wound up with a crockabaloney. OK, I'll stop now.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 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. JForget 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roosing

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

If the subject wasn't made up in school one day, then this is definitely a non notable neologism. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:MADEUP. In addition, the article states the term was created by Martin Coutts, which also just happens to be the name of the article's creator. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I think snow is due too... "So what is Roosing we hear you ask?" They must have very good hearing because I never said a word about it. It is "renowned .... in the UK"? It is so well renowned in Merseyside that I have never heard of it - and can't find much (or indeed anything) of note on a certain well known search engine. Peridon (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Speedy Delete. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for a while longer and aggressively try to find sources. The article claims it has been around since 2002, so it is not brand new. Dew Kane (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They probably would claim a longer history than 'created last year', bearing in mind what happens to things like that.... As to 'aggressively try to find sources', guess what I've been doing? And I've tried some odd places. Nothing. Apart from which, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" - quoted from WP:BURDEN. I have the feeling that this is an attack on someone known to the creator of the article, someone with the surname Roose. I've not managed to identify the victim - if there is one. "Entrepreneurs"? No evidence of that either. The only Jordan Pilkington I can find of any note (more than just a name) is a Southport boy who was six in 2007. There is a Martin Coutts, journalist, but I don't reckon that this is him. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to really support anything in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could find no sources. That the article asserts the concept has been around for several years is no reason to give it added weight; if anything it should make the case that there should be better sources out there. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment It should be noted that this word already means "praising" in English. I see no sources, and certainty no way that this could be notable. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of items in Dave the Barbarian

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

This is an unsourced list about trivial aspects of a kids' cartoon show containing nothing but plot summary and original research. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced trivia list, merge any usable content into Dave the Barbarian. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia. Eklipse (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter fancruft and trivia. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Dave the Barbarian showed more promise than Disney gave it credit for, but this article doesn't show any promise at all. It's extremely unlikely that reliable sources will turn up to establish the notability of any of this—I certainly can't find any. Deor (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pobedy Montes

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

Notability in doubt. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails WP:MUSN, passing mentions in the Los Angeles Times and an advert in the Fort Worth Star Telegram do not establish notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but the regular way. This is enough to avoid a speedy deletion, but not enough to establish notability. Everythign else found consists of event listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Formula One

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

Prodded by User:147.70.242.54 with the following justification: One part crystal balling, one part coatrack, and mostly something with a "cleanup" tag since 2006. Speculations, proposals, and "could be" should be discarded; parts with citations can be tucked into more appropriate articles. The future itself cannot be documented to satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, just those parts that have been contracted and/or officially announced. Deprodded by User: 70.29.210.242 with the edit comment rm PROD - longstanding article - lots of editors - rated "mid" by WPF1 - send it to AfD if you want to delete it. I tend to agree with the former as there is quite a bit of crystal balling, and the 2010 data can be easily incorporated into 2010 Formula One season. B.Wind (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article does not add much, referenced infomation merged with approiate pages. Much is speculation. Cystal balling --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has plenty of sourced content that belongs somewhere in our articles about Formula One, but I don't think that, for any topic, having a "Future of xxx" article is a good way to organise content. Information should be presented in a timeless way, so that it remains accurate whenever it is read. By definition the content here will not be part of the future of Formula One in a few years time - it will either be part of the present (if these measures are adopted) or of the past (if they are are rejected). I would urge the relevant Wikiproject to find a better way of organising this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, sourced infomation should be moved to a more relevant article. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree with Phil Bridger. The majority of content is outdated and unreferenced. All of the referenced material is already mentioned across other pages throughout WP:F1. Most of the future content is at 2011 Formula One season. Schumi555 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as the editor who posted the original {{prod}} tag. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By way of (in a way) Ten Pound Hammer's Law. Ham tech person 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CBALL. What is salvageable can easily be placed in other articles, indeed much alread has. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 19 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyser Söze

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

Almost all the information in this article is already stated in the plot of The Usual Suspects. The little original content that there is in this article, should probably be merged with the article for the actual film, if it is to remain at all. Bibbly Bob (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete, simply merge all encyclopedic info not already in The Usual Suspects into that article and redirect. --Lambiam 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I started this off by typing "very weak keep", but in typing out my thoughts, I've convinced myself to render a stronger opinion.) As it currently exists, this is not a worthwhile article, and there would probably be little or no harm to deleting this article. However, I think there is room for a more legitimate article to be written, one that goes beyond the basic plot summary and trivial pop-culture mentions. Spacey won an Oscar (as well as several other awards) for this, which doesn't necessarily indicate a notable character, but does indicate a notable role. The character of Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze was named villian #48 in AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, and nearly every character listed has an article. Also, I've seen this character (as Verbal Kint) mentioned in a number of places as one of the best recent examples of an unreliable narrator. If this article is deleted from this discussion, we need to be prepared for it to be recreated, eventually in a manner that will stand. cmadler (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. the character of Keyser Söze has gained a cultural significance beyond the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfKrueger (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant "character" -- much clearer than the description scattered tin the plot section of the movie article. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is deleted, will Charles Foster Kane be next? Character has been discussed in reliable sources outside of articles dedicated to the motion picture, as indicated by Cmadler and hinted to by ProfKrueger. B.Wind (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of sex in India

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

Appears to be an OR topic, no sources specifically covering this topic. It is ether OR:FORK or OR:SYN. Largely unsourced. Wikid ^as©

Delete or merge remaining sourced material (not much) back to History of human sexuality. 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Wikid ^as© 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having general article, History of human sexuality, does not prevent creating articles by countries. Poor sourcing is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biophys. There's plenty at Kama Sutra. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ,needs improvement though. Arjun ⁰²⁴ 08:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content of the article seems to be about the history of attitudes to sex in India, rather than the history of sex itself, which surely goes back to the evolution of sexual reproduction. My first reaction to the current article title was to think of the famous quotation from Philip Larkin , which, by the way, should be in Wikiquote, but isn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's much to write about. Ancient liberality reflected in Kama Sutra and temple sculptures, effects of Muslim invasions in Middle Ages, differences between Indian and European households, influence of British Raj and Victorian moral sensibilities, Gandhi's struggles against the temptations of the flesh projected onto the national stage, and contemporarily the AIDS epidemic, human trafficking, sexual abuse of children, and controversies over censorship. Better writing and editing are the solutions to flawed articles, not deletion. LADave (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though needs references.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cultural attitudes in one the largest populations in the world towards one of the basic tenets of the human experience is indeed notable and numerous sources exist. How the article is crafted to remain neutral and present an overview with due weight covering perspectives over history will be work but that is regular editing and not a reason for deletion. -- Banjeboi 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a valid topic, and is so long, it cannot be suitably merged into anything else. Dew Kane (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsudo

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010. I can find no independent sources. There's no evidence it passes WP:MANOTE. Head of organization claims to have been founder's only student. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed at the MA project, can't find anything making this pass WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 primary sources for an art founded by one guy not notable. --Nate ^t/_c 09:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific Taekwon-Do Federation

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010. I was unable to find independent sources. It seems to fail WP:MANOTE. The sources given in the article are of little value--3 of the 5 are dead links, 1 is just a dojo address and the other is essentially an ad. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've tried to establish notability and simply can't. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small fed of dubious notability, with not sourcing to support it, plus a lack of useful content. --Nate ^t/_c 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TDR Records

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

Two of the three bands this record label have signed have articles but the notability of those is borderline; Google search is only bringing up primary sources, Google news had this [1] from a local news site; not enough for WP:COMPANY. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any signs in the article that is in notable or that the bands are. Clubmarx (talk) 04:30, 13 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (russian song)

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

No assertion or evidence of notability substantiated by citations to reliable third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is substantiated and many other things. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I cannot understand why this has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia is international, not just American. There are reliable sources for this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am not so sure about those reliable sources. Two references are links to YouTube, which is of course not a RS. The others are to Russian books and from the way they are presented (citing just a single page from each book) it is strongly suggested that each contains only an in-passing mention of the song. --Crusio (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Seems high enough quality not to detract from Wikipedia if read. Has some useful info. Seems a notable song if you read the article. Mike Young (talk) 12:58, 15 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Anderson (politician)

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

Nothing in this article supports the subject's notability, speedy declined and prod contested. Referencing consists of a link to the official council website contact details. I have only been able to find some statements of his in the local press, recycled from press releases. Subject is current leader of the Labour opposition on the council and I believe that subject fails WP:POLITICIAN as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of those rare exceptions for local politicians. He is the opposition leader in a major metropolitan council, and the coverage (which I am progressively adding to the article) is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much more notability can be proved. We have articles on elected mayors, but I do not think we normally do on the leaders of councils, let alone the leaders of the opposition there, even for cities the size of Liverpool. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and Redirect. The critical piece of policy is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." This means leader of the opposition of the council does not automatically confer notability, but media coverage might. Looking through GNews and the references in the article, there's plenty of mentions of him, but mainly in articles in local papers about something else. Very few articles actually where he is the subject. My opinion is that it's good, but not good enough, but I'm open to what other people think. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles subjects only claim to notability is as a politician and fails the criteria set out in WP:POLITICIAN by a large margin. Even if he were to become leader of the city council he would still fail to meet the criteria. - Galloglass 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diem (content management framework)

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

After a contested proposed deletion tagged some time for lack of notability and external references. The creators do not seem to have them and me neither. Tikiwont (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks multiple, reliable sources. Ekerazha (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No particular consensus has arisen to delete this article, and it certainly seems implied that the awards listed are sufficiently prominent to warrant inclusion. The acrimonious wider discussion about the sourcing of articles in this area does not seem to have reached any particularly decisive conclusion, but in this particular case there is clearly insufficient support for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Barron (pornographic actor)

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

As there has been a sustained attempt to source this article, and the sources supplied have been repeatedly deleted for Dave Awards and Gay Erotic Video Awards (both being reliant on the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source), there seems little prospect of appropriate sources being found in the near future. Consequently the article fails to meet WP:PORNBIO as currently stated. As the creator of the article, I would appreciate a discussion in order to set a precedent for this topic so that I do not waste future effort creating articles or stubs likely to be deleted or the center of lengthy dispute over interpretation of the sourcing and notability policies. Ash (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This nomination seems POINTY, especially with the Dave awards. I assume that these awards do exist and that the person did win it. The problem is that no one has been able to verify whether the 1996 Adam Gay Video Directory includes listing the awards prior to 1994. Supposedly, the 1994 awards was listed in the directory while prior years were listed in the Advocate. Someone out there must have a subscription to a literary database that includes that magazine to confirm rather than using a vendor site. I have academic subscriptions to several databases but have no idea which one may include this magazine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was not pointy. The article was left unsourced with even the most high level reference to AGVD being deleted (diff). In that state any BLP should be speedy deleted, PRODded or raised to AfD, this article has no reason to be an exception and AfD gives the opportunity for wide discussion. Ash (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources added. Sadly I think Ash has too much confidence that just because the AfD started a misguided admin won't delete a porn bio anyway. We've seen quite a few of these articles speedied when restoring and citing content was all that was needed. In any case I too feel that the AfDing wasn't helpful so would support closing if nom withdraws. -- Banjeboi 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument put forward from Morbidthoughts was that the AGVD citation was not verified. This same citation has been re-added. I see no reason to keep this AfD open if the source has now been verified to his/her satisfaction. Ash (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's verifiable to a reliable source. No one is even suggesting the content is untrue or misrepresented just that the original weblink to the mirror site had to go, and it has been replaced with the original source so it should be fine. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So did anybody actually confirm that the 1993 awards winner is in the directory. Otherwise, my dispute still stands despite banjeboi's reinstatement of the citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have suggested an acceptable way forward on my talkpage which sounds great, if that doesn't work all we're resolving is how to represent content, which is not disputed and has a reliable source(s) accurately. One way or another we should be able to fix it. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, WP:POINT violation, forum shopping. Full discussion of the relevant issues is ongoing at Wikipedia:An/i#Fraudulent_referencing; User:Ash's description of the dispute here is far from accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not forum shopping as this AFD was raised for an article with no sources to demonstrate notability as per PORNBIO. The ANI you raised was a claim that the citations I have added to several articles were added with intent to defraud. This AFD is about the article meeting notability, the ANI you raised was to request admin action against me. ANI would not be the right forum to either reach a consensus on the suitability of sources (RSN would be the correct forum) and ANI is neither the place to reach a conclusion as to the notability or potential for short-term improvement of this particular article. Ash (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IF the awards listed are actually noteworthy. Otherwise, delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and "Keep" per JBsupreme ONLY if the awards listed are actually noteworthy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards are noteworthy, the only point was that we need to clean-up the sourcing or one remaining award which is in process. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be kept if the Gay Erotic Video Award wins have been verified, but the Dave Awards aren't notable enough to count towards PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This hobby horse again? Please stop making this misleading comment in every relevant AfD. PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards." The Dave Awards are part of List of gay pornography awards which is in the first category named as an example category. If you want to change the PORNBIO definition then use the normal process. As you have taken part in the fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page of PORNBIO on this point, it is hard to understand why you are not aware of the facts. It appears that when it suits you, you argue for uncompromising hard-line implementation of PORNBIO as a means to delete gay pornography articles, but when PORNBIO can be used to keep an article, you immediately switch to ignoring it and prefer your personal opinion instead and apply soft arguments such as "not notable enough".
- Yes I did raise this nomination but your interpretation of PORNBIO is transparently partial. Ash (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the Dave Awards are considered notable, He was the gay porn authority in the US for several years (late 1980s-early 1990s) providing independent and reliable reviews in Advocate Men. If they were called the "Advocate Men Awards" this would be a non-issue. We are in process of getting all his awards confirmed to ensure we have them all and correctly attributed to whichever reliable sources they are in. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of notable awards. Dream Focus 15:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mugairyu Iaido Association India

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010. I can find no reliable sources. It's a relatively new organization and fails WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith effort was made to find notability, but it seems to fail WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced and no sourcesDwanyewest (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Lack of sources and poor quality sources are not grounds for deletion. jmcw (talk) 10:10, 18 March 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 per consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the AfD nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Watkins

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

DELETE. Google News Archives search reveals a tiny handful of passing mentions, but no substantial coverage seems to exist from reliable third party sources. I'm near certain that this was created as an autobiography, as this has been copiously edited by one User:Kitwatkins (talk · contribs). --JBsupreme (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder member of Happy the Man, member of Camel, appears to have quite a large discography, some available from Amazon resellers [2]. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot keep unsourced WP:BLP articles, and the discogs page doesn't provide anything substantial either. Both Happy the Man and Camel are unsourced as well but perhaps that can be corrected. What do you suggest? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a general "Delete all unsourced BLP articles" policy now? I think it should have its sourcing improved, though I wasn't suggesting sources to use (I don't really have the time to spare myself) - I was just showing some evidence that suggests he might be sufficiently notable to avoid deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking you what you think the best solution is. I have searched and have found nothing substantial about this person in reliable sources. If it can be improved, wonderful. I don't see evidence that it can. In those specific cases we do tend to delete WP:BLP articles, yes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, sounds cool - I guess we need to wait and see if User:Shoessss, below, can come up with some good refs. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry to say sourcing, is an edit issue, not a reason for deletion. I have always felt it was the responsibility of all editors, when they come across situations like this, that it it is much easier to reference the piece than propose for deletion. With that said, just based on his association with Happy The Man as shown here [3] Mr. Watkins meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. I’ll add some sources over the next couple of days, based on the references found above. . Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find many sources on this individual. Many might not pass reliability, but there were several that definitely would. Additionally though there is probably a conflict of interest by editor Kitwatkins that is no reason to delete the article, much of the content seems to come from other editors. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Concur with Narthring and Shoessss - sources exist. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources exist" is not a particularly helpful comment in this case. We know that peripheral sources exist. Do sources exist which document this particular person in detail? I will gladly withdraw this nomination if evidence of such can be presented. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:48, 17 March 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 Compiz. While there appears to be some small degree of notability here, there is minimal coverage of him outside of that specific project. The history has been left intact for any useful information to be merged. ~ mazca ^talk 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Reveman

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR in my view. Apparently there was an interview with him on a site closely related to this work, but even that's a dead link now. I had prodded this, but someone discovered a "no consensus" VfD from 2005, so tectonically it's ineligible for prod. Pcap ping 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what WP:AUTHOR would have to do with this article, but the subject sounds like he's just one of many employees at a software firm. Also, as the article is unsourced, there are BLP concerns. RadManCF (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have found that David Reveman has been newsworthy. The article now has a few citations. I am not sure what the general feeling is about software developers in terms of how much coverage becomes significant. Given the brief time I looked for sources, I suspect that there is more out there. --Bejnar (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you had a look at the newspaper interview/article, can you tell us if it's solely about him, or is he just interviewed as an expert in some other context. And how long is the article? Thanks, Pcap ping 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Salt Lake Tribune article was about five of Norvell's tech geeks, and their combined presentation. Reveman was the last of the five and in addition to his talk, it described him as "Norvell's Graphics Ninja." The PR Newswire US article was primarily about software. It did talk about Reveman's leadership role at Norvell, indicating that he was not just another programmer. Not a lot, but how many programmer get that much? I didn't listen to the interview, here, but the link is not dead as it said in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Compiz. I can't find anything that says anything of interest about him unrelated to that project, and from what I can tell he's only really notable for starting that. More recent news hits seem to show that he has passed out of the picture. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy (artist)

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

No indication of notability. Label does not appear notable, thus I see no indication that he passes WP:MUSIC. I'm using AFD instead of CSD in case there is something I'm missing that would indicate that he has notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Although he does have some songs available for streaming on Amazon UK, I can't find any information about any of the albums listed in the article. In addition, the fact that the article was created by User:Dummeh suggests a violation of WP:AUTO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nomadik

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

Not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Copyright violation ttonyb (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per ttonyb. Darkfight (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 March 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. Tone 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Wildenstein

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

Contested prod. Subject does not meet WP:BLP1E provisions (cf. an essay), or WP:N. The current version explains why they came under the media spotlight, with singular-focused press coverage (which included unflattering nicknames). Aside from a smattering of biographic info. used to pad out those press pieces, sources seem absent: there is no evidence of significant coverage required to build an encyclopedic article. –Whitehorse1 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brian Peppers all over again. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive press coverage, many GNews and GBooks hits, and even a fair number of Google Scholar hits, including pieces equating her cosmetic surgery fixation with Michael Jackson's. While she's best known for her bizarre (and entirely self-inflicted) appearance, coverage like that in the NY Times shows she's notable for other activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like she fails WP:BLP1E pretty clearly. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, as shown by her entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Mangoe. Has no hope of becoming encyclopedic or properly filled out because most of the sources are tabloids, and repeating the claims would end up violating BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can this have "no hope of becoming encyclopedic" when it has an entry in a print encyclopedia published by the Greenwood Publishing Group? Surely that demonstrates that the subject has already become encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an entry in a book about body adornment, [4] and it notes that she's the object of tabloid attention. Trying to write a bio without using the tabloids would be very difficult, and in any event she does fail BLP1. The article would end up being either cruel or incomplete, and probably both. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sixteen references at the NYTimes site can't fairly be described as tabloid, nor can the nontrivial number of Google Scholar hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't intend on replying to every comment, re the NYT though: in the 1st result the subject's only mentioned in a reader comment, the 2nd is a mere mention (list of people patronizing an auction house with their goods that year), 3rd's a fleeting mention, the 4th's a passing mention of her in an article about another member of the family (a Sylvia), 5–16 again are mere mentions. Of those I just looked at on gscholar: the first one's a mere mention in someone's unrelated dissertation, the next is her name mentioned in a quote at the start of a book chapter, the third is result one repeated. –Whitehorse1 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Keep. Notable. Perhaps not for the right reasons, but indeed notable. --FormlessOne 11:54 PM, 3/14/2010. —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable for more than just one reason. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What happened with this article? I came searching for info and found this article empty and nominated for deletion. I don't think notability is a concern, although writing it neutrally and respectfully can be a challenge. Abisharan (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails several BLP criteria. Several people have said 'notable for more than just one reason', yet none has articulated what those other reasons are. Achromatic (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Noteable, just.--80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; textbook case of BLP1E. Fran Rogers ❇ 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is BLP1E...notable for only one rather shallow and transient thing. In five years, no one will want to look up the name. --Stani Stani 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E, human decency, etc. Steve Smith (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Horrible article of no worth about a living person. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basic biography concerns, human dignity. ---MohammadMosaddeq (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic BLP1E stub-article - Alison ^❤ 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can't be judged from its present form--it's been a good deal worse than that. I'm rather restrictive about what I use BLP 1E for, and this is really more than one event--but delete upon general BLP grounds as inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Strips

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

No reliable secondary sources which address the podcast or blog directly and in detail. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, not a single reliable source in sight, which explains why this article is so full of factual inaccuracies and outlandish claims. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Adventures of Dog Mendonça and Pizzaboy

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

No indications of how this graphic novel might meet notability guidelines. Prod removed by article author without comment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - obvious ad for non-notable product. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Not even the publisher nor anyone involved have wikipedia articles either. RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 16 March 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 per consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Raj Singh

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

Does not appear to be notable. Farm league wrestler with a single article written about him. cmadler (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, worked for and held titles in Stampede Wrestling, the top wrestling promotion in Canada, which satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Also has at least one article about him: [5]. Nikki♥311 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established through article from a major publisher and having competed for Stampede Wrestling, a major notable promotion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable." I can't find anything suggesting that he has yet competed at the fully professional level. In particular, the fact that he was wrestling while in business school suggests the opposite. Only one independent source has been provided, and the general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", and specifically states that "[l]ack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." cmadler (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references from reliable sources allow this to cross the verifiability threshold and being a two time winner of the Stampede Wrestling International Tag Team Championship as a professional appears to more than satisfy any WP:ATHLETE concerns. A number of MLB and NFL players have gone to college during their professional careers, usually to finish an incomplete degree, so that's not a strong counter-indication as to his professional status. - Dravecky (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up Against It (band)

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

Prod removed, Not notable band. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:BAND as the only claim of notability is having a single member who is the son of a claimed notable singer. The claimed notable singer is not in the band though - just the son of the notable singer. Otherwise this is just a local band that does not yet appear to be notable in any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had speedied this when it first arrived. No edits since then have demonstrated any more notability for the band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. Aiken ♫ 01:01, 14 March 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 per consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bac u kry

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

It looks like this article fails WP:N. It is here for a while, but still it's relevance is questionable. Also, user who create this article is also questionable, as multiple other articles by him has already been deleted. Wikipedia is not propaganda. --Tadija (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -It was featured on The Guardian (here). kedadial 23:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, if Guardian writes about it, then Wikipedia should also? Wikipedia have it's own rules, and should not follow guardian ones. --Tadija (talk)

I gave you The Guardian article for notability, otherwise "Bac u kry" slogan was the main theme of the celebration on the day of independence. kedadial 11:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules are precisely that we follow the judgement of reliable sources such as The Guardian. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Also, user who create this article is also questionable, as multiple other articles by him has already been deleted." -Do you have any proof for such claims? kedadial 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This (User talk:Ardijusufi), and per Deleted Contributions.--Tadija (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article stands and falls on it's own merits, not those of the creator or any editor. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be notable in the international press - Guardian, UK [6], Der Tagesspiegel, Germany [7], Gazzetta di Parma, Italy [8], Hoy, Spain [9], e.novine, Serbia [10]. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established per above (GregJackP (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Notability seems to be established, though a bit thin for my taste - I'd like to see more. As to the good faith (or otherwise) of the author, obvious bad faith articles would be dealt with through the Speedy Deletion process. The presence of multiple speedy deletion warnings from months ago is not of particular relevance to this article, especially when one of those warnings was for this article in September 2009 - at which time the speedy deletion was declined. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:54, 16 March 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 Overwhelming consensus that this individual is notable despite a sense of self-promotion or disparate politics Mike Cline (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Malagurski

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

Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion or personal profiles

Boris Malagurski, who I suspect is hiding under the username Cinema C (I did not even bother checking his IP address), is using Wikipedia as his personal promotional vehicle and Wikipedia page as his own personal ad. He was banned from Serbian Wikipedia because of trolling, vandalism, malicious propaganda and edit wars. He tends to write nationalistic, inflammatory articles, based on national, ethnic and religious grounds, and uses Internet for his own nationalistic propaganda. He tends to write, from one sided point of view, about the war in Yugoslavia, of which he of course has no recollection as he was only a baby when the war started, thus with his nationalistic and closed minded approach he incites ethnic, religious and nationalistic feelings. He has not made any movies (since he claims that he is a movie director) other than incredibly offensive nationalistic stuff and has not gotten any significant awards that he should have his own Wikipedia page. If he in 20+ years becomes a director in the class of James Cameron, Spilberg, Polanski & Co., then I would be more than happy for him to have his own page, but until then he absolutely has no grounds as he is NOT A NOTABLE person, thus need not to have a Wikipedia entry. Imagine if every single film student with access to the net would now open their own pages after they have gotten an A+ or some student award - Wikipedia would become a mayham.

Due to him not being a notable person, his prior offensive behaviour on Serbian Wikipedia - I am nominating this article for deletion.

Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, I reject claims that I am the individual in question. Such accusations should be made elsewhere. Svetlana Miljkovic has first broken Wikipedia policy by blanking this page without an explanation, and is now resorting to deletion, perhaps due to previous personal experience with this person who allegedly edited on Serbian Wikipedia.

As for the article itself, it has several secondary sources, something necessary to keep the article on Wikipedia. Before it had these sources, the article was actually deleted, but brought back after the required sources were provided. It was the topic of another deletion discussion and it was not deleted. Neither should it be deleted now.

Concerning the arguments Svetlana has provided - even if Mr. Malagurski is a nationalist, and it's very debatable whether he is, should we delete the article of every nationalist on Wikipedia? Second of all, nobody is claiming he's in the class of James Cameron, Spielberg, Polanski & Co., but there are many articles of other less well-known film directors on Wikipedia. As I've mentioned, there are several secondary sources that confirm Malagurski's notability - it's not just some student with an A+ or some student award - his films are broadcasted on television (Russia Today being the latest channel to screen his film) and has won awards on International Film Festivals (non-student ones). His youth? Well, many young people have articles on Wikipedia, people much younger than Malagurski.

It seems that Svetlana's arguments are more based on some kind of personal grudge, than on a sincere approach to this issue. She ignores the secondary sources, the awards and TV screenings, and focuses on this persons alleged behaviour on Serbian Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with his notability. I say this article should not be deleted, like the last time it was nominated. Thanks, --Cinéma C 06:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Incredible, another nomination. Concerning that user banned for "malicious propaganda" and so forth - Svetlana, the maturity level is different when comparing the Serbian and English Wikipedias, it seems. In the English Wikipedia community, a single user doesn't get lynched (practically), by every other user registered there. Especially seeing that the user was an administrator. In the English Wikipedia, policies proved to be more successful for controlling articles and other material, such as the arbitration committees, and other measures. "Vendetta" has no place here, or on any Wikipedia. If you want to discuss an article further, you do not blank a page. You have not edited the Serbian Wikipedia since the 15th of August, 2008 (your own user page), or the English one since the 19th of October, 2009 (your own user page). It seems suspicious on your end, really, since you are aware of User:Bormalagurski's (deleted user) history, because you are active, once again, with an energetic nomination for deletion - now even accusing another user of being him. "...other than incredibly offensive nationalistic stuff and has not gotten any significant awards that he should have his own Wikipedia page. If he in 20+ years becomes a director in the class of James Cameron, Spilberg, Polanski & Co., then I would be more than happy for him to have his own page, but until then he absolutely has no grounds as he is NOT A NOTABLE person..." - The reason you are here, Svetlana, is because you disagree (through a political motive) with the message the documentary is sending. That, quite frankly, is your own problem that you'll have to deal with. This article also has secondary sources, and the documentary is now Russia Today's feature in presenting the Serbian view in the Kosovo conflict. Reiterated, here are some sources: *Literárky V Síti, Ministry for Kosovo of the Republic of Serbia, Novinar, Czech Free Press, Bas Biber, Radio Television Vojvodina, International Radio Serbia, Novine, The Diocese of Ras-Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, Georgia Straight, Edmonton Journal, and definitely more, including those mentioned in the article. He definitely passes WP:CREATIVE. Definitely keep for this one; there are strong arguments supporting that. Take care, --Bolonium (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bolonium

I have initially blanked the entire page by mistake, becaus eI have never notminated an article for deletion before, and was playing around with the AfD tag. Even though I haven't been active on Wiki in a while, I've been long enough here to know that simple blanking a page will not result in deletion of a page, and that there is a process, so obviously, 'blanking' was not intentional.

The reason I have suggested the article for the deletion is: 1) well, I can, anyone is entitled. 2) non-notable person. 3) I have ran across his Wikipedia page (I actually don't spend my life surfing the net for Boris Malagurski) thanks to a highy offensive Facebook group he created, which links back to his Wikipedia page.

Apropo, sourcing - in a highly nationalistic country such as Serbia, it is all the more norm that his nationalistic so-called movies will be mentioned in papers you have brought up.

And given who you are, Bolonium, it is pointless to even discuss the matter further with you, since you, just like Mr. Malagurski, do not even live in Serbia to appreciate the situation there. Therefore, I have nominated the article for deletion, and it will either be kept or deleted, so, my is to nominate it, and for others is to decide. I do not plan to reply, as I have stated my opinion of the article. Cheers.

Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are against Malagurski only due to your political standpoint, and perhaps past instances with that user on the Serbian Wikipedia. (I don't want to get involved in that.) The film actually does convey what a lot of families have to go through living there - container camps, isolation, fear. Understand that before dismissing it as nationalistic nonsense. "And given who you are, Bolonium"... You don't even know who I am, just like I don't know who you are. Yet, you emphasize that it is pointless to even discuss the matter with me? Why even discuss it with any other user here? The majority of en.wiki users don't even live in Serbia, if we were to look at it your way. The idea here is that you, me, as well as other users, are supposed to be open to discussion. Evidently, you don't support open discussion, just like your political views differ (which is fine, really). Be open to discussion, and allow other users to participate too - no matter where they may live... Whether it is in Serbia, Croatia, or even Togo. Assume good faith - your opinion might differ, but respect other users and their views too. It is kind of offensive to accuse me of not appreciating the situation in Serbia, solely on where I live now. I do not plan to reply, as I have stated my opinion of the article. - So basically, after offending me, you make your leave? Apropos, if you want to play around with articles, there's the sandbox. Cheers. --Bolonium (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - C'mon, this is outrageous! I will not comment nor Svetlana, nor hers Cinema C sock false accusation, i will comment only article. Boris Malagurski article is:

Well sourced
Passes WP:N per sources, and per Boris Malagurski occupation.
Always has been target of non-neutral editors, again per Boris Malagurski occupation and his films.
Absolutely acceptable per Bolonium article related facts.

As it was agreed earlier, there are no need or reasons to delete this article. --Tadija (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to be well-sourced (I can't read all the references, but I can see they do mention the subject - it'll have to be for others to decide if they really are sufficiently reliable sources), and he does appear to be sufficiently notable - Wikipedia isn't just for award-winning Hollywood directors. The reasons for nomination appear to be personal, political, and based on unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusations - if you think you have sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry, please take it to WP:SPI, otherwise just leave it out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I commented on the first AFD and thought it was a bit of a strange one. The amount of text on these three AfDs is a bit odd. Usually it doesn't take that much so convince editors of notability. Clearly some of the editors here know the subject, its just painfully obvious. I don't know how to !vote. He's possibly notable, but its hard to tell due to the puffery.--Milowent (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful article, reasonably-referenced. Evalpor (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This article is clearly self-promotion. kedadial 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is nothing but a bunch of unfounded, unproven personal attacks and attempts at WP:OUTing. Such behavior is blockable, incidentally. The fact that the previous two nominations failed speaks volumes, as does the fact that the only one who has voted "delete" so far is an Albanian editor. Athenean (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was deleted once. Cheers. kedadial 12:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the time to read the debate, you would notice that it was deleted on the same day it was relisted for further discussion. The moment an extra delete vote came in, an administrator deleted the article. That AFD nomination went on for 8 days. If we followed the same model, the result of the discussion should now be keep. You would also notice that this nomination has been relisted for a longer period of time. --Bolonium (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone just lay out the case for notability instead of all this crapola? Are the sources cited good sources? There are no cites to any major serbian newspapers that I can tell. Even if its kept, I see some pruning is probably in order.--Milowent (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please read the entire discussion? Previous ones as well, if needed. Why do people have to keep repeating the same things over and over again, just because some people present unsubstantiated arguments for deleting a well-sourced article. --Cinéma C 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I have been reading it all. And I am very skeptical. This article was deleted in the first AfD, and closed no consensus on the 2nd, so simply saying its "well sourced" is not very convincing, apparently. And I am very much an inclusionist. Has this subject's work ever been cited by any major serbian paper? I take it that the answer is No, and when we are dealing with someone who makes films about Serbia isssues, that is troubling to me. Many of the source publications cited in the article do not have their own wikipedia articles, which isn't dispositive, but doesn't help me assess them. For example, the only article in all of wikipedia to cite this "Serbian Voice Weekly Newspaper" is this article.--Milowent (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would second Milowent's plea for more specific arguments here. I can make sense of Serbian (in either alphabet) but reading it is a slow process for me, so it would be helpful if people who want to keep this could specify which of the sources cited in the article support their position, and if those arguing for deletion could identify which of them do not qualify for supporting notability. I remember making quite some effort in the last AfD to come to an opinion, which was that Pečat may be a reliable source but that Novinar and Global Research are certainly not, so I would welcome any information about any sources that have been added since that disussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's just a few new ones I found on the latest film's website & elsewhere:
- We will break the myth of the Yugoslav breakup 27. 01. 2010. G. Gligorević for "Vesti" (News) a printed Serbian newspaper distributed worldwide.
- The Weight Of Chains at the end of 2010 R.B. for "Srpski Glas" (Serbian Voice), a printed newspaper in Australia.
- What happened? in "Novine" (Newspaper) from Australia.
- XL Reports: Kosovo Can You Imagine on RT - Malagurski's film broadcasted in over 60 countries on satellite, cable and analogue TV. --Cinéma C 02:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect. The sources would seem sufficient. The reasons given for deletion seem to be that the nominator disapproves of the person's politics. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 18 March 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. Nominator has agreed to keep the article at the last pure NPOV, the only issue is now to get it to that state. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Aid Society (Canada)

This article is a complete mess. It was obviously written with an "axe grinding" slant against the CAS. I asked for help editing it quite some time ago as well as put the NOV tag on. The only responses I got was from someone who felt that the article was too pro CAS. I'm not confident enough to re-write the article, but I think it's a shame to leave such a poorly written piece on Wikipedia as well as such a slanted piece against CAS itself. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written, ~~Delete~~ Keep - while there is no doubt that CAS is notable, and ~~Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those that hate CAS. Completely violates WP:NPOV.~~ The idea to revert and protect is better than deleting the article. (GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The last neutral version of the article is from April 2009. This should be kept and at minimum reverted to that version for now, but the keep should be only after major restructuring and a definite long period of semi-protection because of heavy IP hammering at the POV. Nate • (chatter) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this would be totally appropriate. I would have no issues with this arrangement. I also have no issues with a section on Criticisms, as there ARE plenty to be had, but the article as it is reads as a soapbox. (Apologies is this isn't kosher to put this here, but wanted to throw my two cents in. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, obviously (lots of sources and an important subject).Biophys (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Plenty of sources available and notability intact. What remains is regular editing which is not a good reason for deletion. -- Banjeboi 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Revert to the last neutrally worded revision and request semi-protection. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did attempt to request semi-protection last night without success. Nate • (chatter) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you sincerely doubt the truthfulness of any statement, you tag it with two { followed by the word fact and then two } and ^{[citation needed]} will appear. If you believe its one sided, giving undue weight, then discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did state in my OP that I *HAD* asked for help on the talk page. None was forth coming other than someone who thought the page was too pro CAS. As such, the article itself is a disgrace and a poor example of what should be on Wikipedia. Hence my agreement on the revert to last NPOV. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The topic is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basically the Children's Protection unit in Canada. Very notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly notable as an organisation. Content disputes are not resolved by deleting an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 15 March 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 Community Consolidated School District 62 (Illinois) . Any information deemed relevant can be merged into the target at editors' discretion. ~ mazca ^talk 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Elementary School Des Plaines Illinois

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

Just another elementary school, nothing notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 226Trident (talk • contribs) 2010/03/10 02:38:22

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/SmergeorRedirect Previous AFDs have generally deleted elementary school articles,or merged them with the school district article, but kept high school articles. If coverage in books, magazines, and newspapers show that some elementary school or middle school has special architectural notability, or if some new system of pedagogy spread from there to revolutionize education, or if it is historically important for some other reason, then it might get kept in AFD. These articles typically just copy and paste from the school's website. This article's creators are commendable for finding and cited press coverage in local papers, although it is typically routine, such as funding of the building and expansion of the school. There are news items in addition about sewage backup and storm damage. All this seems pretty routine I suggest a redirect ~~"Smerge" or selective merge~~ to the school district article, Community Consolidated School District 62, leaving out most of the directory information of who the school secretaries and officials have been over the years, and what the enrollment was each year. Edison (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't have an article for Community Consolidated School District 59 (Illinois), which has a lot of elementary and middle schools, of which Cumberland Elementary is one, and Chippewa Middle is another. Maybe someone can write an article that draws from this [11] and leaves out all but a few facts from this article. Links can be tossed in for people who want to know more about sewage spills and the like. Mandsford (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do so have an article, because I spent a lot of time and effort creating it. I have now moved Community Consolidated School District 62 to Community Consolidated School District 62 (Illinois) which is the relevant district. I do not agree that it is encyclopedic to detail every sewage spill or damaged roof at every elementary school in the world, or at this one in particular. That said, there could well be a paragraph about each school with referenced information which the community finds to be encyclopedic, following the summary table I created. We should avoid undue weight given one sewage backup, or any other one negative news story in coverage of some school with a long history. One of the schools, Iroquois Community School, goes year-round and that certainly deserves a paragraph as well. I created the table from the individual school report cards, but could not find individual school numbers for faculty and student faculty ratios. Edison (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I've updated the entry in the article Des Plaines, Illinois to reflect the existence of that article. The other information can be placed in an article called List of every sewage spill or damaged roof at every elementary school in the world if someone wishes to create one. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into existing article on Des Plaines, Illinois. Warrah (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - "Just another elementary school, nothing notable." so lets merge it into Community Consolidated School District 62 (Illinois) and thanks to Edison for his hard work on creating this. This shows how much better it is for the development of the encyclopaedia to create omnibus pages rather than to shrug shoulders and select an easy delete option. TerriersFan (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Into Des Plaines, Illinois. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Community Consolidated School District 62 (Illinois) per appropiate home. Buggie111 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannelore Krause

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

Delete, this appears to be a possible BLP1E victim who fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP1E. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 March 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. JForget 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Ruund (Luunda)

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

No encyclopedic content. No sources or references to speak of anyway. Almost all pages linked are redlinks. Fails to establish notability. Outback the koala (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: The content is transferred from the website Rulers.org. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~If that is the case, this should be speedy delete. per G12.~~ Outback the koala (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer favour speedy delete, but there is still no notability (and no intro). I still favour delete. At the very least this should be be merged (see double page List of rulers of the Lunda Empire). Outback the koala (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Lots of detail, not one source. Sorry, no. It ain't 2004 anymore. Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source found. Not a copyright violation either. It is simple list in obvious order. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Rmhermen (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete G12~~ Thank you for the legal opinion, but plagiarism is never OK, nor should Wikipedia ever encourage its contributors to ignore an assertion of copyright. It's a stretch to compare this to a telephone directory. Going by the summary in the article listed above, "The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved." Vejvancicky has persuaded me that this is plagiarism, and the person who compiled rulers.org asserts a copyright over his work "©1995-2010 B.Schemel". Clearly, an administrator needs to intervene in this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how reliable is the website Rulers.org.--Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is an important part of history. Not many sources would be found, but history of rulership of a place is notable. May not be well-known in the US, but still is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! Here's an even better List of rulers of the Lunda Empire. The author of that one couldn't be bothered with such things as sourcing either. Maybe this piece of garbage can be merged into that piece of garbage. Mandsford (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your not sarcastic at all 'Good News' was reminiscent of Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth and left me laughing. Nice. Outback the koala (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. (Don't want to put the G12 tag back although I believe it qualifies) It seems the admins are not in agreement about what a copyvio is and what is not. List_of_rulers_of_Kuba was speedied on Friday. This and some others have been declined. Presenting research results in list form does not prevent them from being protected by copyright law - this is not a list anyone could assemble without much trouble. --Pgallert (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, looks better now. The list itself still has remarkable resemblance with the entry at Rulers.org, but I assume they extracted it from the same book. --Pgallert (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, this list is not a piece of garbage, it seems to be quite correct, if you check the content using the book Lunda under Belgian rule: the politics of ethnicity (fragments available on Google Books). The author of the book, Edouard Bustin, appears to be a reliable authority in this field. The article has some room for expansion. I'm not sure with the copyvio issue, but the content is not garbage, it is a part of Africa's history. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please - add it to the article as a source! It would establish notability and finally provide a reference and all this content can be saved. Outback the koala (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more facts and relevant references. I'm not familiar with the "political" situation in Africa in the 19th century, and the searching in fragments of the book is quite complicated. Additionally, there is a problem with the alternative spelling of names of listed rulers. I tried to check the facts carefully, but this clearly need attention of a better informed person. However, I think this list should be kept here.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Vejvančický, can the same be done to List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka), also up for AfD here? --Pgallert (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very good work by Vejvancicky, who has consulted a source and mentioned what the source was. Copying and pasting someone else's list and then presenting it as one's own creation is never okay. That crap may have been tolerated in Wikipedia's early days, but not anymore. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on the use and effect of computers in college students.

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

This appears to be a possible college thesis - which is not what we are here for. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-confessed original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR (GregJackP (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - This is clearly someone's research paper (and not a very good one) just copied and pasted. Even I have done graduate-level research on this topic but did not copy my work into WP. Delete per WP:OR. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for people to create articles that store their information in, it should be on the user's page instead of an article. Something like this, (their username)/Research on the use and effect of computers in college students. Not putting the info onto an article. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's due on Monday, right? Make sure to throw in some footnotes before you turn it in. Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 March 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.

The automated headcount shows that opinions are nearly split about whether to delete/merge or to retain the article. That indicates a "no consensus" closure, unless there are compelling arguments for deleting the article or unless the arguments for keeping it are particularly weak.

The arguments for deletion are mainly that the content is deficient (WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, WP:COATRACK) and that this minor episode in Robert Kennedy's life does not need a separate article. These are valid arguments, but they do not compel deletion, since the first issue can conceivably be addressed through editing rather than deletion and the second issue is a matter of editorial judgment.
As to the arguments for keeping the article, since keeping an article is the default outcome, all that is needed for them not to be discounted is that they should not be frivolous or counter to policy and practice (e.g., WP:ILIKEIT). By these standards, all or most "keep" opinions are valid.

Consequently, since the discussion is split between generally valid but not compelling "keep" and "delete" opinions, it is closed as no consensus. I note also that the article has been heavily edited during the AfD, which makes assessing any consensus even more difficult. Sandstein 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)

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

This article fails notability and is highly problematic in terms of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and WP:RS. It seems to have been created entirely to push a pro-Israel point of view and the particular thesis of the author that Kennedy's later pro-Israel views and assassination were a direct result of this early experience. When Robert F. Kennedy was only 22 he spent a couple of weeks in Palestine. The main article Robert F. Kennedy devotes a single sentence to this trip. (Or it did before Mbz1 started editing that article, too).

The title of the article is not accurate to the content, and the article is a WP:COATRACK. Rather than describing Robert F. Kennedy's experiences in Palestine it is mostly about his opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In particular, anti-Arab and pro-Israeli comments that have been cherry picked from Kennedy's dispatches by the articles author.

The sourcing of this article is poor. It relies mainly upon unreliable opinion pieces from sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the obscure blog Jerusalem World News. It also uses the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs as a source, which is a pro-Israeli advocacy organization. 3 pages of a book about RFK is used, but this source does not support much of the material which is cited to the opinion pieces and it is also being selectively quoted to present RFK as an uncritical fan of Israel.

The article is written in a highly non-encyclopedic manner. For example, "The story that ended in tragedy in The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles had started twenty years earlier in a different part of the world.". This sounds like popular magazine writing, not encyclopedia writing. "In spite of his antisemitism, Joseph P. Kennedy probably was proud of his son Robert." this kind of speculation is not factual or supported by sources. "Robert Kennedy was also correct when he completely dismissed the notion that a Jewish state would ever become a Communist state." Kennedy didn't say that a Jewish state could never become communist, and agreeing with him about such a claim regardless is highly POV. "Young Kennedy had a special gift for getting people to talk to him." is a subjective judgement. "He became expressive while visiting a kibbutz." is just poorly written.

The article assumes and repeatedly states that Robert F. Kennedy's later support for Israel as a politician was due to these several weeks he spent there as a young man not because of later experiences or politics. This is a highly debatable notion, but the article repeatedly presents the notion as if it were fact.

The current (2010-03-12 10:55 AM EAST) lede is an observation that Kennedy's assassination fell on the same date as the Six Day War, and says nothing about Kennedy's visit whatsoever. This shows how little this article is about the supposed subject and how much it is about the OR argument of the author.

Note that the author is reverting any attempts to fix the obvious NPOV problems and sourcing problems by removing balanced Kennedy quotes and keeping the ones uncritical of Israel and by keeping distorted summaries of Kennedy's view points without explaining himself on talk - [12], [13]. Meanwhile, Mbz1 has kept her cherrypicked pro-Israel quotes. This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and suggest that Mbz1 is using this article purely to push a certain point of view, not to present a balanced, encylopedic overview of the subject

Amazingly, Mbz1 has even removed such objective, important information as the dates that RFK was in Palestine simply because they don't further her agenda. This user really needs to improve their understanding of neutrality on Wikipedia.

Note: because this article is unsalvageable due to the massive original research, sourcing, and POV issues and its topic is a WP:COATRACK I have started a draft of an article that should cover the same material but is accurately titled - User:Factsontheground/Robert F. Kennedy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Editors are invited to improve that article.

Factsontheground (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice that Factsontheground is falsifying practically everything in the deletion request. For example that quote that he tries to attribute to Robert Kennedy is false and the user knows about that. The user has chosen to ignore few reliable sources that were introduced to the article yesterday and today.I've never seen such dishonesty as I see now in that deletion request by user Factsontheground. It is very disappointing that some revieweres instead of reading the article, checking out the sources and so on are making their opinions based on the statements made by Factsontheground.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference you provided only shows I added the references, and did not remove anything. If I removed the dates, it was by accident because you made few edits at once, and I felt it was safer to revert to the last version. Please wp:AGF and post the dates back. I have nothing against those dates.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Fails notability? Everything about Robert Kennedy is notable! There are nothing wrong in any of the source, but the nominator forgot to mention that piratically everything that is stated in the article has one more very reliable source pages 74-77.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mbz1, although I would recommend that a few sentences will be rephrased. Broccoli (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable topic per Factsontheground. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly sourced, POV ~~rant~~ personal essay. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you really believe that you are in a right position to call Robert Kennedy's writings "a rant"?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just your presentation of them. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin, aren't you. You should know better than call something "rant" with no samples. Please provide an example of mine "presentation of them", which is "rant" in your opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly sourced, heavily one-sided and reads like a WP:OR personal essay. However, since I have no desire to cause offence, I have struck "rant" and substituted "essay". Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider this to be a "poor source"? Why two articles from Jerusalem Post are "poor sources"? Where exactly to you see WP:OR, provide all the instances please?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or two of the sources look okay but you have also sourced to an Israeli advocacy site, a hard right magazine, and a bunch of op-eds mostly from Jewish publications. These are a long way from optimum sources when it comes to a topic area as contentious as the I-P conflict. OR? Well for one thing, you have attempted to melodramatically link Kennedy's 1948 visit to his assassination. You have also cherry picked Kennedy's quotes. For example, here's one quote from Kennedy's diary you didn't bother to add:

"However, the battle over Palestine was the result of an extraordinary endeavor: an attempt by some European Jewish leaders to implant a large Jewish community in Palestine - which necessarily implied their taking all or part of this land away from the Palestinian Arab people who had been living here for centuries". Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I did not see that quote. Could you please provide the link to it?~~ I found it. This quote is mentioned in one source only. I doubt very much that this quote is from 1948. Kennedy never used the words "Palestinian Arab people" in any of the dispatches from 1948 that I have read so far.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source precedes the quote with the words: Kennedy continues.[14] He is quoting from the same 1948 article in the Post he was quoting a moment before. Gatoclass (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw after you mentioned it. It is from the source I added today. I did not see this quote before. I doubt very much it is from 1948 because of the reason I have explained above. The therm "Palestinian Arab people" came about much later, maybe even after Kennedy's death, but of course I might be wrong on that. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While some of the phrasing could be improved, the article deals with a notable topic and is well sourced and can easily be more so given some time rather than this quite speedy delete attempt. It is a good start on a larger article. As noted in the article RFK's fate was sealed in Palestine and he was one of the first victims of Palestinian political violence [15][16] in the United States, ie Sirhan Sirhan. While we already have a main article about RFK, this is an area that deserves expansion, with a reference to the main (RFK) article. Stellarkid (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, the subject may be (barely) notable. I'm not sure whether this merits an article of its own or merely a sentence in Robert F. Kennedy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy was in the ME for a few days in 1948 as a callow 22-year-old and made some entries in his diary. I'm inclined to agree that this is not substantial enough for an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps an article on Kennedy's views of Israel or the ME conflict as they developed through his life might be worthwhile, but I can't see the point of an article on a topic as narrow as this. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you read that all those so-called " entries in his diary" were published in the most popular news paper of Boston Boston Globe? IMO your inputs here so far clearly shows that you have not a slightest idea what you're talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own the article, and will appreciate any help, I could get.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Mbz1, please stop using a large font to emphasize your comments. Using a bold font is sufficient. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shabazz, I used "big" two times here. First I put my comment in big to attract the attention that I'd like to get the help with my prose. So far instead of the help I hear POV, OR, personal essay. So, even me using "big" did not help. The second time I used big was to write Robert Kennedy name. Do you see any problems with writing his name in big letters? I am amazed that some Wikipedia administrators and users seem to forget that it is Robert F Kennedy they are talking about, that it is his writings that they do not find notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't care if you were writing about God Almighty, there is no reason to shout (i.e., write in big text). I think, or at least I hope, everybody who comments here knows who Robert Kennedy was, but if they don't, shouting his name won't enlighten them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do agree on this one. No reason to use large font size. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be more of poorly written personal essay than an encyclopedic article covering a notable event. Also plagued with POV issues. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFrankly, the article needs improvement, but frankly the reasons given here by the nom and Gatoclass have yet to convince that deleting is legitimate here. The nom's reason is clearly heavily laden with a POV justification and not a WP editting justification. The nom and gatoclass cry that all the sources are pro-Israel? This is ridiculous, the nom has never had a problem finding other references to suit his POV and this is not a reason to delete. The article needs improving, not a deletion. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a dismaying rush to judgment here. The article has barely had a chance to have its initial shortcomings corrected. Considerable development has taken place in the past 24 hours, much of it in response to issues raised here (not always politely). Constructive criticism on its talk page is always welcome, deletion would be an overreaction. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been an attempt to correct the shortcomings of the article, but unfortunately Mbz1 seems intent on retaining them and is reverting attempts to balance and improve the article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite (Keep) - Just recently I saw an article written like wiki was the "Palestinian Encyclopedia" and the thought of raising it for AfD crossed my mind. Anyways, I gave a look to the article and, indeed, it is written a bit like an essay. Going over the general body of it - I learned something new about RFK and, when you think about it, this seems like an encyclopedic side story for the assasination. i.e. the mention of the visit is fitting for the main article while the data from his visit is a side article for the random Kennedy enthusiast. Btw, while this one feels a little similar to the other article, its not nearly as bad. Keep and rework in proper wiki-fashion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which pro-Palestinian article are you talking about, if you don't mind me asking? Factsontheground (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factsontheground, I am not sure why don't you like so much that Kennedy said that Jewish state will not become a communist state, but here just for you: page 77. The quote starts like that: "...that communism could exist in Palestine is fantastically absurd..." Please read it directly from the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't like what you are insinuating, but the reason I don't like it is simple - he didn't say that. He was talking about Palestine, as your quote demonstrates, not any Jewish state. Factsontheground (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I insinuating nothing. Please see just above the quote in the source I provided. It clearly says that Kennedy dismissed the notion that Jewish state will ever become a communist state. I really do not see what the argument is about. Back in 1948 Kennedy did not know that, but we do, there's no communism in Jewish state -Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could this AfD be just a little more premature? I see issues here, but ones that are fundamentally addressable. IronDuke 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs lots of work. Maybe the people arguing to delete because it's a personal essay will help improve it and make it more encyclopedic. Anybody want to bet on that? I'll give you odds. Breein1007 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are attempting to do that, but Mbz1 is reverting every change that does not support his pro-Israel agenda. So much for neutrality or balance. Factsontheground (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted the adding of the quote that probably was not by 1948 Kennedy, and explained why at the talk page. It will be added back after I will do the research. That quote is from fiction book, and no other source has it. It also looks very different from everything else that Kennedy said. I provided the source only to confirm yet another time the quotes that other sources mention, but it is not reliable enough by itself to use it for a quote that is not found in other sources. I understand Wikipedia has to me neutral, but most importantly it has to be reliable at the best on its ability. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just rework the article...its contents are clearly valid and notable. Jack1956 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having had a closer look at this article, there are some points I think worth making.

Firstly, all the content related to RFK's assassination is irrelevant to the topic "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)", and the attempt to link Kennedy's assassination with his 1948 visit is WP:SYNTH.

About half the remaining references relate to Joseph Kennedy's antisemitism, scarcely relevant to the topic. That leaves just three references relating directly to the topic itself. One is an Israeli advocacy website,[17] one an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post,[18] and the third is the Schlesinger book.[19]

Taking a look at the first two references, it turns out they were both authored by the same person, Lenny Ben-David, who is described in the JPost as a former Israeli diplomat. His credentials are unknown, there is no way of cross-checking his claims, and he can hardly be described as an independent or scholarly source.

That seems to leave just one scholarly source which has written about this topic, and that is Schlesinger. It really does seem to be just the one source as I've been unable to turn up anything else on this topic with Google. So we basically have an article sourced to a single reference. I very much doubt that this is sufficient sourcing for an encyclopedic article, particular in a contentious topic area like the I-P conflict. As I've said, an article about Robert Kennedy's attitudes to Israel might perhaps be viable, but an article about four op-eds Kennedy happened to write for the Boston Post in 1948 otherwise seems like a pretty trivial topic for a standalone article to me, an assessment reinforced by the apparent lack of scholarly sources which have bothered to cover it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I just did a search for the quote "The Arab world is made up of many disgruntled factions" and :found it in one more book besides two other sources: [20]. Practically all quotes are present in that book. Besides I contacted Lenny Ben-David, and he explained to me that he used original news papers for his article, that BTW was fully endorsed by Kennedy's daughter.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you managed to find one long out of print book by an obscure author that apparently includes a brief quote from one of the articles. My congratulations, but this fails to persuade me the topic merits a standalone article. And I really have no interest in your private correspondence, which is irrelevant to the issue of reliable sourcing or to the other issues raised. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I managed to find yet one more book that has a limited preview in Google Books. There are dozens books out there that have the info, and have no preview at Google books, which means they are hard to find.. I first read about it, when I lived in Soviet Union 25 years ago in Russian book. The author of the book I found is not "an obscure". His name is Godfrey H. Jansen. The book has all or almost every quote that is used in the article in full length. The book is used as a reference in many places including, but not limited to Wikipedia. You do not have interest in learning not about my private correspondence,you've no interest in the learning the truth, because you just doesn't like it. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you don't have a copy of the book, so you have no idea what it says about Kennedy's trip, and whether anything it says is substantial enough to establish notability for a standalone article on this topic.

What you do have right now is a single scholarly source, the Schlesinger biography, which briefly covers the trip. Schlesinger summarizes the significance of the trip and the Boston Post articles which came out of it as follows: "The pieces showed a maturity, cogency and, from time to time, literary finish creditable for a football player hardly out of college." That's it, he has nothing more to say about it. Does that sound like an item worthy of a standalone encyclopedic article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, I am afraid. First I found yet another another book (page 650). Second I found more info about the other one. Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims JANSEN, Godfrey. Hit the link and read: "Foreword by Abdeen Jabara, member of Sirhan's defense team" and "Sympathetic portrayal of Sirhan Sirhan" . The author and the attorney are establishing the connection between "two victims" Robert Kennedy and Sirhan. The book extensively quotes Kennedy's reports and diaries on many pages. It looks like it has the complete text of everything he wrote from Palestine in 1948.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it seems you've managed to find some useful commentary on the Kennedy visit. I am pleased this discussion has motivated you look for some more viable sources, and I look forward to seeing some of this new material included in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are included either as references or as external links.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary needs to be in the article. One of the central problems with the article is the lack of secondary source commentary on Kennedy's pieces. The Kennedy pieces are effectively a primary source for this article, Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary ones. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I spent some time trying to rewrite this article, just to figure out what the heck it was talking about so I could make a determination if it should be kept or not, but it's a great big terrible mess. Any useful information contained herein would be better housed in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination and Sirhan Sirhan pages. Who on earth would ever type "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)" as a search term? What articles would even link to this one, aside from the two I mentioned? This article is just... useless. ← George^talk 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange statement from an experienced editor "Who on earth would ever type "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)"? The article has been linked to already from Robert Kennedy article, and probably could be linked to from few other places. It contains a valuable and interesting information--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link that wouldn't have existed had you not added it. Regardless, while I agree that the information is interesting, I don't see any value in it. As the creator of this article, maybe you can help me Mbz1. What the hell is this article talking about? RFK visited Palestine in 1948, and fell in love with the Jews who lived there, then gets killed 20 years later by a Palestinian who is angry at RFK for supporting Israel in a war a year before that. Why does this need an article? There's nothing in this article but a random assortment of quotes and some random dribble about Joe Kennedy being anti-Semitic, and something about communism. Reading this article was like trying to talk to a person who hears voices in their head. It talks about a half dozen unrelated subjects, and tries to hint that they're related without saying how. I don't get it. ← George^talk 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Broccoli.--Gilisa (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a synthesized essay on a young RFK's opinions, and speculation on how they may have been the reason for his assassination. The (weak) attempt to frame his assassination within the context of the ol War on Terror doesn't help matters any, either. Salvage anything useful and use it in the main pages on RFK or the assassination. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or redirect Sources exist which assert notability. I agree that this is quite "specialised" in focus though.. I would not object to merging info into main article. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is being attacked with a hatchet by some attempting to remove the POV from the article. However the POV is not Mbz1's or any WP editor's opinion, it is the well-documented opinion (POV) of RFK. We cannot remove it simply because we don't like it. The opinions are his. By complaining that they are cherry-picked and deleting them from the article, the editors are not whitewashing and censoring opinion from WP. The BBC has said that RFK's support for Israel was "well-documented." Consequently the quotes will reflect that. Stellarkid (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As near as I can figure, the author believes this to have been a major turning point in someone's life. Or not. The date of the articles and RFK's assassination is an interesting bit of trivia (June 5-6, 1948 and June 5-6, 1968). Historically notable? Not then, not now.Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you figured it out wrong. It is a very important, and notable connection that was established not by me, but by Michael R. Fischbach , who is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He writes:
"Sirhan was a Palestinian whose parents had fled their home in West Jerusalem as refugees during the first Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, when he was 4 years old. Raised first in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem and later in Pasadena, Sirhan grew up deeply embittered about Israel and the plight of his fellow Palestinian refugees.

Sen. Kennedy, by contrast, admired the Israelis, a feeling that dated from his days as a young correspondent for the Boston Post covering the war in Palestine in 1948. Sirhan's early support for Kennedy turned to hatred after the senator advocated the sale of advanced F-4 Phantom jets to Israel in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East, a war that also signaled the growing U.S. support for the Jewish state."

this connection is almost symbolic:
Kennedy wrote his reports in 1948 about the conflict. Sirhan's family fled their home in the very same 1948 because of the very same conflict. Both men met again in 1968.
Another point that Mr. Michael R. Fischbach made is that
" The Robert Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern "terrorism" here at home -- decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, decades before Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda became household names." --Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you do not want to say that the assassination of Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968 is not notable event or do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Robert F. Kennedy's assassination was notable enough for its own separate article. Sirhan Sirhan (also, certainly notable enough for his own separate article) was, unfortunately, one of thousands of Palestinians who became refugees when the State of Israel was proclaimed. And Robert F. Kennedy was one of many United States Senators and politicians who supported Israel. Within the article about the assassination, or the article about Sirhan, Mr. Fischbach's observations would Sirhan's motives would be part of the information. Fischbein's suggestion that Sirhan was carrying out "the first case" of Middle East terrorism isn't something that most people would agree with. It goes along with other theories that he didn't act alone and was part of a larger conspiracy, and those theories are discussed in both articles, although if someone other than Sirhan took credit for Kennedy's murder, I'm not aware of it. Mandsford (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First-of-all Robert Kennedy was not just "one of many United States Senators and politicians" . He was a brother of John Kennedy, and, if he were not killed, he would have been the president of the USA. Second of all Mr. Michael R. Fischbach does not suggest that it was the first act of terrism, he said it was "the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil", and that is a proven fact.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several have expressed the hope that the POV can be eliminated and that the original synthesis and the essay can be replaced with something more concrete. I'm not sure how much more POV or OR that one can get than the premise that "...Robert F. Kennedy became the first American politician murdered by an Arab terrorist. The story that ended in tragedy in The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles had started twenty years earlier in a different part of the world," so it's going to take a lot of rewriting, to be sure. Though I can't see that this would pass based the policies concerning point-of-view and original synthesis, it looks like there are enough keep !votes for this to close as a "no consensus" this time around. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- May I please ask you, if you have read the article itself or only the deletion request? There's nothing of what you mentioned above left in the article now.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Sadly, it seems that this "article" is going to be saved by bloc voting. Factsontheground (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just contacted John Kennedy's library at 617-514-1629. They do have both Robert's reports and his diary in their possession.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone's WP:OR thesis. Every cite is essentially from a primary source; the thesis itself comes from the article's author. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that his is one person's thesis and essentially from a primary source is just plain wrong. The following are some of the sources (non Primary) that support this:

Support any friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance By Warren Bass pages 50 (the last paragraph) and 51.

Zionism, Israel, and Asian nationalism 1971
Afro-Asia and non-alignment
Why Robert Kennedy was killed; the story of two victims,
Militant Islam, 1979
Whose Suez? aspects of collusion, 1967

So sorry but the argument that the sources were all primary and/or that the thesis was only that of the author of the article is incorrect. Stellarkid (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction: The book's author is Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., not Arthur Meier Schlesinger, which redirects to Schlesinger Sr. It's more than a little disappointing that neither you nor Mbz1 have looked at the book's cover at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the Afd came about within 5 minutes (hyperbole a bit) of the article presentation. IN trying to defend the article in such a short period, mistakes can happen. A simple correction would have been nice without the "more than a little disappointing" criticism considering the extenuating circumstances, but... there you go! You got your bit of criticism in for a simple mistake anyone could have made, and did not comment on the substance of what I wrote. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)ps. I have corrected my post!Stellarkid (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did Malik, of course I did, but the thing is that instead of typing a hard name I decided to copy and paste the author name. For that I copied and pasted the book name to Google search and :) found that:Arthur Meier Schlesinger. It is how the mistake came about. Very nice job on catching it!Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the time the afd was initiated, most of the content was impeccably sourced and well-written. Whether this belongs as a separate article or should be renamed are things that have to be discussed, but there's no valid reason for deletion at this point.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahahaha. "Impeccably sourced". See WP:RSN here. Factsontheground (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is one of the best sourced articles on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the article has a difficult bar to climb for notability and other issues, I'm willing to give it time. I see nothing so irredeemable about the article that it needs to be deleted within a day or two of its creation. That said, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:N, and WP:OR weigh strongly here. Ray^Talk 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robert Kennedy, where it would deserve at most a small paragraph. The article establishes quite well that this event had no lasting significance and isn't more than a footnote to Kennedy's biography. Zero^talk 03:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm not convinced that the topic is notable as a standalone article. It does seem notable within the context of Robert Kennedy's life, and should be merged into his article. Rami R 11:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heyo, give a look at my comment above, let me know what you think. Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Robert F. Kennedy article. RFK never pursued journalism as a career and the Middle East was never to central focus of his political career, so having a standalone article on this topic is curious. Nonetheless, some material here can be cited in the existing biographical article. Warrah (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or NPOV re-write needed There is no great reason to have this stand alone article; it is more of an episode in RFK's life; a chapter and not a major event. If it is kept, it should be re-written in NPOV. Further, an accepted historian should be used as source, such as Schlesinger, who in his re-issued tome on RFK discusses the trip on pp 73-77. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you be so kind to point out POV for me that I would be able to fix it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One that stands out is:..."June 5, 1968 was the day Robert F. Kennedy was murdered. Michael R. Fischbach wrote: "The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern 'terrorism' on American soil decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names."[1] This is the newspaper "Commentary" author's POV. Further there is no reason to name Fischbach (a footnote cite is better) and using a direct quote. There is no need to promote him directly, using this article as the springboard. Now it is true that Sirhan, in his mind, thought RFK was too pro Israel. You should check out the book, "RFK Must Die" it fills out more information. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, Fischbach, is not just any author. Michael R. Fischbach is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He is an expert on the subject.He is a reliable source. Do you still believe the quote by him should be removed? I believe the quote should stay, but please change it as you suggested yourself. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Other authors that make the same case include:

"Robert Kennedy was the first American victim of modern Arab terrorism" Jeffrey Salkin
RFK Shooting was Arab Terrorism --"Associate Editor of The Jewish Week Jonathon Mark wrote "...Sirhan Sirhan, a West Bank immigrant who wanted fair play for Palestinians."
Book review of The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy "However, there is a wealth of evidence to show that Sirhan was not faking when he insisted his act was political in nature. And his act of terrorism does not contradict the personal motive as terrorism experts like Steve K. Dubrow-Eichel recognize."
Book entitled The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy Mel Ayton [22]
It's what we do Writing in The Independent, Cato Institute's scholar Ivan Eland wrote "The most noteworthy instances of such retaliatory terrorist attacks are: In 1968, Robert Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, who regarded Kennedy as a collaborator with Israel. Sirhan was born to Palestinian parents and felt betrayed by Kennedy’s support for Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Stellarkid (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably Merge somewhere, but Keep the content. This is clearly a notable and verifiable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia; I just don't think there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article, and what we have could perfectly well be covered in other articles (mainly Robert Kennedy#Early life and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy). Failing a merge, I'd be OK with keeping it, but I just don't think it needs a separate article. Robofish (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete This article is badly written, not notable and extremely POV. I suggest a brief mention is included in the main article. Vexorg (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vexorg has chosen to lie about two other participants in this Afd, apparently trying to dismiss their posts (see below). --Avenue (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note Avenue has chosen to lie about me by claiming I have lied about two other participants in this thread. I did post erroneous information about ONE participant due to failing to updating my information propoerly but I did not lie about anyone. >-(

comment To assume good faith about you, that you were unaware that the checkuser had found both people innocent of the charge at the time of your post, you at the very least made an false and bad faith accusation, despite being ignorant of the truth of the accusation. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally think an apology is in order. Stellarkid (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue could be being purposely disingenuous. Vexorg (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that make it very hard to assume good faith about your prior assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vexorg, I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. I believed you would have known about the SPI result, and I was not the first person to post here saying so.[23] My post was made in good faith. If you would rather we believed that you made serious allegations about other editors without bothering to check the SPI's progress, then I'm sorry for saying you lied. The fact remains that you chose to malign two other participants here by making serious accusations that you could have easily found out were false. --Avenue (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Bene: The article has been extensively re-edited since it was nominated for deletion, it is completely different now than when nominated, and because of that the reasons given for the nomination no longer seem to apply. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the current version of the article that would change my entry above. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either as a separate article or (preferably) as part of a broader one that may not exist yet, e.g. Robert F. Kennedy's views on Israel. There is useful, well-sourced information here, which provides too much detail to merge into the articles on Robert F. Kennedy or his assassination. -- Avenue (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Robert Kennedy's visit to Palestine or Robert Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine. The event in question seems to have been covered by a number of reliable third party sources, which makes it pass the general notability guideline. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote from delete to rename or merge. I've rewritten a lot of this article, and while the topic is interesting, and can be sourced, I don't think Kennedy's visit by itself is broad enough to warrant its own article. I would support either (a) renaming and expanding as Robert F. Kennedy's views on Israel, per Avenue, or (b) merging into Robert Kennedy#Early life and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, per Robofish. ← George^talk 02:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is a better name.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over-weight on a very minor aspect of a famous person's career. Nothing to merge--everything pertinent is already in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research concerning anti-Zionist quote in question

(Moving to talk page, per editors' agreement. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been struggling to work out what the purpose of this article is. It appears to be trying to say that Robert Kennedy was killed because of his support of Israel, which originated when he was in palestine in 1948. That could well be a fair enough point, but a separate article is not required to say this. Rather, it is better to discuss this on existing pages such as Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy. There, it can be addressed within the full gamut of reliably sourced information on this topic (of which there is a vast amount). I can't help but think this is a POV fork from the main topic. Quantpole (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research by synthesis, appears to have been created for the purpose of advancing a POV. *** Crotalus *** 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While the article appears to largely cross the verifiability threshold, the standalone notability of this handful of dispatches appears to be questionable, at best. Even after extensive clean-up and somewhat better referencing, I'm pressed to understand why this couldn't be condensed to a solid paragraph in the main RFK article. The article is only nominally about the dispatches and RFK's experiences and more an excuse to quote selectively from the dispatches themselves making any POV issues intractable. - Dravecky (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everything that happened in this mans life will be covered by multiple sources, that does not mean that everything that happened in his life merits its own article. This is a minor point in his life that can be covered sufficiently in other articles. nableezy - 16:04, 20 March 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 procedural keep. The nominator recommends that the article be replaced with a redirect, but it is not necessary to invoke the AfD process to do this. No administrator tools are needed and WP:BRD is sufficient. Procedurally, because there are no opinions suggesting the material should be deleted without redirect, this debate falls under WP:SK ground 1. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Standard normal deviate

Standard_normal_deviate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete, with redirect. The topic of the nominated article is already covered in the normal distribution article. Besides, the terms standard normal, standard normal variable, standard normal distribution, standard normal random variable all redirect to normal distribution already. // stpasha » 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are shades of meaning and context here that are not adequately covered by the normal distribution article, and which it would be unhelpful for a reader to search through a long article to find if some attempt were made tom include it: and of course the topic has little directly to do with the normal distribution as a distribution, whichg is supposedly the topic of that article. I have restored the redirect of standard normal variable, to point to standard normal deviate as it should do but was redirected after an automatic change following the earlier attempt to impose a so-called merge for which there was no support. Melcombe (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I started this page in ignorance of the term, which I came across in my work. I think that a redirect could be appropriate so long as the term is explicitly mentioned in the normal distribution page, with the meaning/context mentioned by User:Melcombe in the previous comment.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 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. Tone 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Papania

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

Delete Advertising or other spam without relevant content /just promoting himself and his organization/ not notable/ story only verified by himself

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Σκυρόδεμα ακριβείς μεθόδους (talk • contribs) 2010/03/12 03:23:26

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam (GregJackP (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to a lack of reliable, verifiable information. He definitely exists, and was interviewed by James Dobson. The fact that he might be a hoax makes him interesting, but not necessarily notable. The interview was in 1997, and the Focus on the Family website says "The tape "From Mafia to Ministry" featuring Tom Papania was aired several years ago and is no longer offered through Focus." But it doesn't say why, though plenty of other websites are happy to fill in the gaps. We can't take Papania's word for it, but nor can we merely say that he has "claimed" all this. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of non-trivial WP:RS coverage. Google, Google News, and Google Books searches turn up only passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Nothing worth saving in the current article. I've heard his stories and also that he allegedly stole said stories from Robert Scarfone. Seems there might be an article there, for example the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls him a nationally known speaker, but per WP:BLP we would need to completely scrap what is currently here in favor of reliable sources. There seem to be a few non-trivial mentions on gnews, all pay links though. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 04:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. "News" are announcements of him promoting himself and organization, telling his un-verified story. There is nothing notable about him.

--SuperHappyPerson (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)# SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Comment. This paragraph in a 2001 Christianity Today weblog [24] addresses his notability at that time (italics mine):

Ex-mobsters face off on conversion stories

Tom Papania has appeared on Focus on the Family, CBN, Charisma magazine, and a host of other Christian media. And why not? He's got a great testimony, "From Mafia to Minister," about his life from organized crime to Jesus. Only one problem: another ex-mobster, Robert "Rocky" Scarfone, says Papania is stealing his stories. "I'm claiming he used true stories to bolster what is untrue—his testimony," Scarfone says. He filed a lawsuit against Papania, Focus on the Family, and CBN, saying they conspired to steal his story. (The cases against Focus and CBN have been dismissed.) Papania's lawyer says it's all part of fame: "You're going to have people coming out of the woodwork filing frivolous lawsuits. It's the cost of doing business for becoming well known."

--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Szilvia Molnar

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

In the previous AFD I voted to keep this article, since that time some of the links have become dead or content removed from them. The two other language interwiki's have all gone. The general consensus has moved to most things being sourced and especially on bios of living people which of course this is. With all those issues going against this article I feel the time has come to submit it for Afd. It's a bit sad because in the dictionary sense I feel this person is notable and the poetry enchanting, but poets get a bum deal with reliable sources so I submit this article for deletion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. This is an odd nomination, to be sure, but without reliable sources we cannot substantiate WP:BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 March 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLK Latest News

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

Appears to be a spam article about a forthcoming entertainment news website. Written in the first person and has a very promotional tone. Prod was contested. Includes a number of unreferenced claims:

The information given is all true and will contain satistics to be backed but all of it is reliable.
i guarentee that i will give you the information.
SLK latest news is probably one of the most trustworthy because they could be biased to one country but here all are equal
there is no biased all the information on this page is true and reliable. RadioFan (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Speedy delete both There are so many reasons for deletion:. unsourced, spam, no credible claim of significance (plenty of incredible ones). Principally, though, they are unmitigated spam, and so my recommendation is speedy delete. WP:CRYSTAL
Delete per nom and above (GregJackP (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Deleted per G11. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHP For Applications

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

Non-notable software. It lacks multiple, reliable sources. Ekerazha (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same user who deleted the "prod" tag (without improving the article) also deleted the "advert" tag (added in July 2008) and the "notability" tag (added in February 2010). Ekerazha (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Pcap ping 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kumbia PHP Framework

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

Non-notable software. It lacks multiple, reliable sources. Ekerazha (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same user who deleted the "prod" tag (without improving the article) also deleted the "notability" tag (added in February 2010). Ekerazha (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleted from German Wikipedia. Mentioned by a webserver's documentation: http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_kumbia.html All other links in the other-language versions are on project server, kumbiaphp.com Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 22:26, 17 March 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 userfy to User:SerdechnyG/In the High Attention Area 2. As the film's release date is given as "approximately in 2012", I urge the author to read WP:NF carefully before attempting to return this to the main space. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the high attention area 2

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

No assertion of notability substantiated by reliable third-party sources. (Cited sources are for trivia and passing references; NYTimes references doesn't at all mention this film.) Might be appropriate at ru.wiki, but not here. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read this article at all, you may know that NYTimes references describing the events on which scenario is based. However, I don't think you read it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Userfy Per below. I have removed the NYT reference, which had nothing to do with the movie. There are wikilinks available to guide readers to the events on which the scenario is based. The NYT reference does not lend any hint of notability to this movie, as already stated by the nom. The only GHits I found are to blogs or sites offering the DVD for sale, neither of which are reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read above, before writing the same. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Userify If the creator is willing to work on the article, I have no objection to moving it to his space so it can be worked on. (GregJackP (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film that has no demonstrable significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. Also noticed NYT "source" which does not mention the movie, which means it is not a source for this article nor gives the film any notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wasn't broadcasted yet. It's being filmed now. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not negate my delete at all. It is still clearly unnotable as it has no significant coverage and, it also fails WP:NFF in addition to what I've already mentioned. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn`t fails WP:NFF, it has a principal photography, one picture from filming is presented in the article. Other information is a commercial secret of filming company and could not be revealed. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen people, you are talking now about film, which is unreleased and not finished yet. It's a final part of trilogy, and it is of big interest for Soviet- and Russia-related movies critics and ordinary audience. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To User:SerdechnyG... It being unfinished and unreleased is the difficulty, as in those cases Wikipedia guidelines about speculation toward its completion and a film's actual notability require a great many more sources dealing specifically with the film and its production than might be required for a released film... and even then, an unfinished film might not make it. I offer that you might have the article userfied and re-submit it mainspace when sources, even Russian sources, can be included that shows it meets guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Clear. Besides, there is no intent from me, to reveal the director's idea, so I'm asking now to replace this article in my space for further edit. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:SerdechnyG/workspace/In the High Attention Area 2 for continued work per discussions above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:SerdechnyG... all you need do is drop a note to an admin after this discussion is closed, requesting it be userfied to you. The admin could then move the article and its history to your workspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:41, 18 March 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. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the high attention area

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

No assertion or evidence of notability substantiated by citations to reliable third-party sources. Might be more appropriate to migrate to ru.wiki. --EEMIV (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source? No futher questions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it isn't, as it is a wiki type of database. See WP:RS linked above. --Crusio (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per below. (GregJackP (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. This article is about a Russian film (В зоне особого внимания). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Being listed in directory sites like IMDB and Allmovie does not confer notability, and IMDB is user-edited. Film fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film. 5th place in Soviet box office in 1977. DonaldDuck (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source, as well as providing significant coverage, confirms that the film passes WP:NF criterion 2 by being screened at a festival in 2008. There are plenty more sources found by this search. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Judging by this search it would appear that the usual English translation of the title is In the Zone of Special Attention, so a move may be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources found by Phil to meet WP:NF. The page will have to be moved, even if the title stays the same, due to caps. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ratinale of User:Phil Bridger. Notability, even if in non-English souces and in a non-English country are good enough for en.Wikipedia. And I do agree about a possible name move, as translations to English from Russian are sometimes difficult. Input from Russian language Wikipedians would be helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soviet films are of interest. They do not get as great a mention in Western media as US films - but that is not a reason for an international encyclopaedia to ignore them. Clearly the article needs more citations - but then so do a lot of article son Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-style Fighting Competition

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable competition; See also WikiProject Martial arts:Article Review 3rd March Nate ^t/_c 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 09:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We tried to find reliable sources and came up empty. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 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 -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gaul

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

This is a negative biography of a guy who is only possible notable for an accusation of negligence with funds, for which he was acquitted on appeal.

Fails WP:BLP1E by a mile. Scott Mac (Doc) 09:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Searched for relevant sourcing in GNews in the 1990's and turned up nothing but a mess of coverage on this legal issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a countywide officeholder in a large urban county for 20 years, he's clearly a notable figure. He was also a Democratic candidate for Congress in 1994. An initial search of The Plain Dealer archives (1991-present) returned over 180 results for "Frank Gaul". - Eureka Lott 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you link to anything from the PD archives that doesn't cover Gaul in context of the legal fiasco? I almost tendered a "weak delete" on this because of a few things you say above, I just haven't been able to find any meaningful coverage on Gaul outside of the legal problem. The WP:POLITICIAN guidelines for non-national officeholders require substantial coverage (the Mayor example they give is a good one -- ie the office doesn't make the politician notable, but a countywide officer can usually count on substantial coverage as a byproduct of his/her job), and there's almost a strange conflict between those guidelines and BLP1E in this case, because Gaul certainly has substantial coverage, but as far as I can tell it's only related to one event. I just think BLP1E supersedes the Politician guidelines (I tend to think anything with BLP in front of it supersedes everything, hehe), but even a bit of non-trivial coverage outside of the legal fiasco would probably push me to a keep vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-serving treasurer of a very large county is more than a mere local politician. There is more to this than BLP1E. There was ongoing coverage of the subject before his legal troubles and this "one event" seems to have had a lasting impact over a decade later. However, any negative unsourced parts of the article should be wiped (which I have now gone ahead and done). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was coverage of the financial problems, then write an article on them and not a bio. What you've done is left the record of the "reports" of one newspaper, while removing the fact the individual was acquitted. How is that good?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removing it until I find a source for it. Until then we have no idea he was even sent to trial (which itself is a negative connotation) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources now added. Anyone let me know if you'd like to see any direct quotes from the offline sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Mkativerata's excellent work. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 19 March 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. Opinions are split about whether this is a WP:BLP1E case, which is a matter of editorial judgment. Sandstein 08:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahum Shahaf

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

I believe Nahum Shahaf to only be notable for one event. That event, the Muhammad al-Durrah incident, is already a featured article, and discusses Shahaf and his (relatively minor) role in some detail. ← George^talk 09:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by George

Delete - I'm nominating this article because I believe the subject, Nahum Shahaf, is only notable for one event - the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. That article is already featured status, and explains Shahaf's role in adequate detail. Some additional thoughts:
1. Shahaf's article lists him being awarded an Israeli science ministry creativity prize in 1997, and being involved in conspiracy theories involving the assassination of Yitzak Rabin in 1995. I don't believe Shahaf is notable for either of these, as there is no mention of either in reliable sources published before the event he is notable for. They are only mentioned as side notes in articles detailing the Muhammad al-Durrah incident, published after that event occurred in 2000.
2. Only a single article links to this page - the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article.
3. Shahaf's role in the al-Durrah incident, while notable, was relatively minor. Other individuals who played larger roles in the incident - Muhammad al-Durrah, Jamal al-Durrah, and Talal Abu Rahma - redirect to the article on the incident, or don't even have articles. ← George^talk 09:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for information regarding Shahaf on the Factiva news database and have found nothing before 2000 and nothing that does not relate to his role in the al-Durrah controversy. He does not seem to have any visibility in any other sphere of activity. Therefore, since this does look like a WP:ONEEVENT case, I agree that the article should be deleted or redirected to Muhammad al-Durrah incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe the rest of the editors promoting that we include the conspiracy theory about Rabin -- even though we don't know what it is (rejected as a WP:BLP-vio) -- should take a step back from this straw poll. As a sign of good faith, I've decided to take a step back from !voting as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily and obviously exceeds WP threshholds for notability. Appeared on 60 Minutes, quoted in the Atlantic Monthly, mentioned freqeuntly in Israeli papers, a major proponent of a significant minority view. IronDuke 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ID.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I'd like to see better sourcing outside of the al-Durrah incident, but seems to meet WP:BIO. THF (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Shahaf is indeed notable mostly for the al-Durrah incident (also for other things, but he's less famous for them), but even his involvement in the al-Durrah incident is notable and WP:1E does not apply. He won the 2008 Israel Media Watch award for media criticism (regarding the al-Durrah affair), which I believe gives him enough notability for a separate article, even if it's part of the al-Durrah affair. Apparently he was also responsible for uncovering voter fraud and other incidents. Moreover, as a scientist he was involved in Israel's weapons development programs and, according to the article, received a prize for this from the Science and Technology Ministry in 1997. He also regularly conducts lectures in numerous universities. That seems notable enough for me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the title to the relevant section of Muhammad al-Durrah incident. This is a borderline situation, but on balance I agree with George and ChrisO. Nahum Shahaf played a pivotal, but controversial and not entirely clear, role in an Israel Defense Forces investigation into the death of Muhammad al-Durrah. It concluded that Israel probably hadn't shot the boy, and Shahaf privately concluded that maybe no one had shot him. This makes Shahaf's background and reputation vital to the story of al-Durrah's shooting. If you can show that Shahaf is reputable, you bolster the view that there was something fishy about the shooting. If you can denigrate Shahaf, you imply that there was something fishy about the IDF investigation. The article is therefore a BLP violation waiting to happen. While I was researching the al-Durrah article, I couldn't find many secondary sources who went into detail about Shahaf, so there really isn't enough to support a well-researched and balanced biography; if you look at the current version, too much relies on primary sources or passing mentions in secondary ones. Therefore I think the best thing is to delete it and redirect his name to al-Durrah. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment his role is pretty clear imho. Best I'm aware, he was the head of the investigation under Yom Tov Samia. The one who used forensics experts and also the one who fired Duriel after he came out to the media with investigation material while the investigation was ongoing. I have no solid opinion on the Shahaf article, only that I'd hope the people who want to portray him as a crackpot because of the al-Durrah incident wouldn't be involved in any further !voting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Slimvirgin. Factsontheground (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I prefer "delete" to having an article that acts as a soapbox for Shahaf, wherein the resume he has on his blog takes precedence over reliable sources. I'm ok if there is "Keep" decision, in that case RS-supported info on Shahaf's activities outside the al-Durrah case must be included without the selective sampling that some editors have thusfar been supporting. Also it might be a good idea at this point to ask editors to declare if they have any conflict of interest issues re: Shahaf, if they know him personally for example. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expecting to possibly draw some fire for this comment from people who haven't reviewed our past discussions over Shahaf -- but -- I wonder how you'd feel about a similar sample of "RS-s" in regards to Arafat's alleged sexual orientation. Have you given a look to WP:BLP? As in the case of Arafat, the Shahaf smears you're interested in presenting are not fitting without serious mainstream examination. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Arafat's website had pics of the Chippendales that could be interesting. Shahaf's website has plenty of info on the Rabin assassination, you are the only one who said Shahaf's conspiracy theories made him look like "a crackpot" -- he seems rather proud of them, and has organized talks on them, so this "smear" you allege is only so in your own opinion. But it's not your or my job to judge how Shahaf looks, to comb his hair and zip his fly or censure reliably-sourced information we don't personally like. We write about him, using RS, simple. RomaC (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable sources on Arafat (high ranked officials) are of higher value than the ones criticizing Shahaf (i.e. the ones being sued for misrepresenting him). I'm not following your recent suggestion that we use Shahaf's own site for the Rabin issue when you earlier flatly rejected it without even reviewing linked content within. Well, unless I assume bad faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A basic reading of the article reveals that he is notable outside of the Al-Dura incident.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how, exactly? Robofish (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is his work on the Rabin assassination notable, do you think? RomaC (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Muhammad al-Durrah incident or Delete. This is a fairly clear case of WP:BLP1E: the article doesn't contain any significant assertion of notability unrelated to that incident and his investigation into it. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 20 March 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. The WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA delete arguments were strong, and the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL keep responses were weak. On the other hand, the argument that the topic itself was in principle notable and could be well sourced (interestingly, made by both "delete" and "keep" !voters), was also strong. I caution that if this article comes to AfD again in a few months, and still consists of essentially random trivial references to Back to the Future, the argument to delete would be much stronger. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future in popular culture

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

Necessarily trivia, fancruft/listcruft, and possibly WP:OR as a synthesis of material. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this needs is someone with sound editorial judgment to trim it down to a much more reasonable size, leaving only matters of genuine interest (and yes there are some). Then merge it to Back to the Future (film series).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will not work. Trying to put the useful parts (not that any of it is good, IMHO) back in the main article will only open the door to people adding useless junk in the list eventually. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge: I agree that some of the contents would make a viable section in the Back to the Future (film series) article, but only those can be shown to be notable with WP:RS (there are some - sorry I don't have the spare time to go through them all and check). -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reason why I created this "in popular culture" article is to remove this junk from the "(film series)" article. I hate so much these useless material. So, yes, delete the article, but do not move its unencyclopedic content back in the article(s) -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A well written section in prose explaining how the film has been received in popular culture would be appropriate in the Back to the Future article, but one wouldn't need this material to do that. What is presented here is a laundry list of trivial name-drops mostly compiled through original research. None of it is cited, and none of it is directly relevant to the topic of Back to the Future. Even if the topic was notable, the article would have to be rewritten from the ground up to comply with our policies and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, etc). Them From Space 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and keep considering that the Back to the Future definitely had an impact on popculture, a prose article should be able to be written on the topic. The list is crufty though. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the Back to the Future article. Warrah (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a good article that gives lots of great examples. Dew Kane (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well kept article and many examples on its page. Str8cash (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back to the Future (film series) and have a section there based on reliable sources. This article is problematic in content because of the unrelated facts. It is more direct to say that Back to the Future has been cited in film, television, etc. rather than list every instance. Google Books shows the possibility of writing about the films and popular culture in an an academic lens. I don't know if it could sustain itself as a stand-alone article, so we should start at the film series article and spin off a sub-article if necessary. Erik (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you remove the unrelated facts, people will put them back in eventually leading to endless edits and possible revert wars. Moving this into a main article is opening a can of worms. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a merge; I agree that the content is trivia. When I recommend the existence of a section, I mean one that talks about the films' role in popular culture. For example, this says, "The Back to the Future trilogy is among a group of self-reflexive metahistorical 1980s films... in which reshaping the past alters subsequent history and time-travel provides solutions for future problems." This says, "The Back to the Future... movies also make effective (and underappreciated) use of [time travel] paradoxes." This kind of content is what the section should have. It could even be called "Cultural impact" instead to move away from the trivia mentality of "in popular culture" sections and articles. I personally find that the stronger the overall article is, the less likely that editors will contribute trivia. They tend to do this for underdeveloped articles, but a section like Fight Club (film) – Cultural impact has stood strong despite its circa-2006 presentation of a lot of trivia. Erik (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please present an argument to keep? Plain votes are not usually counted. Erik (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has insufficient third person sources to justify notabilliy Dwanyewest (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there any set standards we apply to these popular culture articles? I know we have many of them, but I haven't opined on many in AfDs that I can recall (the only I can recall is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (3rd nomination))? I found the essay WP:POPCULTURE to be useful, but these articles would seem to always pit those who think such lists are "amazing and cool" vs. those who bristle at them as unsourced amalgamations of "cruft". And both sides are right.--Milowent (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in principle notable - I don't think anyone's arguing BTTF didn't have a massive pop culture impact - it's just that the article content sucks. So I've attempt to improve it. As of this posting I have just trimmed the article, deleting the most obvious original research and passing references. What needs to be done now is for each remaining entity to be re-written to show why this popular culture reference is significant, and what it says about the impact of the film. I've done a (not perfect, but workable) example for the Burnout Paradise reference. Sources wouldn't hurt, either, although per WP:V they're not strictly necessary for this kind of thing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if it makes a difference to anyone, it's on my watchlist now and I intend to make an effort to stop the fancruft from re-accumulating. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DustFormsWords.--Milowent (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. I do not see any problem with OR--the devision about whether or not to include material is always a matter of editorial discretion, but we do not call that OR. Without using that sort of judgment, we could never write an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I don't know about anyone else, but when I mentioned OR it was stuff like this: [25]. "In the American version of Life on Mars, Sam Tyler calls himself first "Luke Tyler" and then "Luke Skywalker" in a manner similar to Marty's chosen alias of "Clint Eastwood" (indeed, the circumstances are similar, too)." The leap from "this circumstance is a bit like BTTF" to "this is a reference to BTTF" isn't indisputable and obvious, so without a source from one of the show creators saying, "Yeah, this was a nod to BTTF", it's original research. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Omega Phi

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

fails WP:ORG. Despite what the speedy-declining admin seems to think, statements of vague notability backed up by primary sources are not evidence of importance. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did not really look notable to me thanks to the lack of independent references, but it was not so free of importance claims to be worth speedy deleting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization of local significance in a few colleges only. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thamesbeat

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

Notability

The article fails to establish that the subject it purports to describe - a "music scene" called Thamesbeat - even exists. True that the term was used by a band called The Pleasers (1976-1979) for the reason so awkwardly described ("a piss take") and true they have released one album with that title. However, all the other bands and performers referenced in the article seem to be from the period 2004/5 to present, some twenty-five years after The Pleasers ceased to exist (a couple of re-union gigs notwithstanding). The article fails to establish either that these other acts had any connection to The Pleasers or with each other, or that they considered themselves part of a "Thamesbeat" scene. The article's one reference is a link which leads nowhere relevant. Agree there should be an article on The Pleasers, but almost nothing here is worth keeping for it.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One band's joke, not a genre. Attempts to include other bands under the umbrella appears to be original research — Gwalla | Talk 23:36, 13 March 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. First, I'd like to acknowledge that this is obviously a contentious debate with fairly strong opinions presented. With that said, in terms of numbers, there is a majority of editors opining to delete the article, in addition to at least one comment regarding the lack of online sources that can be used to back up the article's content. We must be especially careful with WP:BLP articles, and this entry seems to suffer from considerable violations of core content policies. All things considered, consensus endorses deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. Jeffrey Wright

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

Vanity article ~~by subject's spouse~~. Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment another article that I tried to fix by removing the worst of the unsourced material, but which the author insisted on returning to the original state. Another person helped also, and was met with a personal attack against him by the author on my talk page. It might be fixable and defensible. In the past I have sometimes tried to rescue an article nonetheless after something like that, but this time I'm not going to try--there's too much else that needs doing. If anyone manages to make an acceptable article out of it, I'd have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the fact that the article was written originally by the subject's spouse (in my opinion), it appears to be an inflated, self-serving page designed to legitimize the subject's endeavors in soliciting participants for various "Ambassador" groups on Facebook and elsewhere.

I don't contend that the subject distributed trees to the public - as thousands (if not millions) of people have - but this fact alone does not warrant an article here. In light this, and of all of the other unreferenced claims in the article, I believe that it should be removed.

Over the past several weeks I have endeavored to edit the article and ask for citations and references to the claims. The article is littered with claims of 'prominence' and 'notoriety' but these are subjective and certainly not verified. On two occasions, all edits to the article were summarily reverted by Ingenosa without discussion. Lacbolg (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my attempts to discover any significant reliable sources on the web have failed. Long-time editors of course recognize that web-available resources are not an absolute requirement for notability, but it does raise modest concern. I searched on several variations of the subject's name, and several organizations mentioned in the article. What I found were essentially trivial or minor references - blogs, social media, organization directory listings, etc. etc. I also attempted more extensive search for some of the references mentioned in the article, which did not contain links. Most of these searches passed reasonable cross-checks but either came up empty (and it was expectable - NPR and Smithsonian magazine for example do not have a deep archives online), or hit content pay walls (e.g. an old Washington Post article is here). However, I did find the more recent article on the Arbor Day dispute in the LA Times online (and updated Wikipedia appropriately). Also, online sources indicate that Kentucky did have a "Rio to the Capitals" conference, at which Gore gave a keynote speech. However, the minor sources I found did not indicate who was responsible for the event, beyond "the State of Kentucky". In summary, sources do not seem to establish notability; while we have some sources for a small portion of the facts asserted, or a good faith belief backed by some evidence that the sources exist, the content of those references that I can review does not meet our requirements, and from the titles and works mentioned in the non-reviewable sources, it seems unlikely that they would be sufficient for notability either. It appears that Wright is a hard-working activist who has been referred to by some local press, but without meeting the requirements of notability or reliable sources, we must delete. Studerby (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the primary editor of this article has been Ingenosa; subject of article appears to have a Wikipedia account as User:Problemsmith. I have no idea why nominator asserted Ingenosa was subject's spouse (I've seen inconclusive contrary evidence), however edit history of Ingenosa and Problemsmith shows Ingenosa to essentially be a subject-related single purpose account (which would be fine, with appropriate conflict of interest caveats, if we could establish notability to standard). Studerby (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the assertion (should have sought a better cite); still no solid evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Lacbolg is also (to date) a subject-related single purpose account, which, as previously noted, is fine if policies are complied with. Noted because (IMHO) SPA status can be relevant to the closing admin in deletion discussion. Studerby (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Dirty

LACBOLG IS DELETING COMMENTS 'Reposted Comment over Article' Use the History I posted this yesterday here and a similar post to User:Lacbolg's page it is obvious to me after seeing it erased from Lacbolg's talk page and after being suppressed here that there are not neutral editors here and Administrators are being manipulated. So now I re-post the comment below. It looks like this article qualifies to be restored and LOCKED because of the controversy and tainted opinions of the Administrators involved and Lacbolgs actions of supressing data and making personal contacts with Wikipedia administrators. Rokrunestone (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted

For the second time, this comment has been removed and suppressed as it contains material in violation of the Oversight policy. Reposting Oversighted content is grounds for escalating sanctions. Phrase your concern in a fashion which does not breach Wikipedia policy, or you will be blocked. Happy‑melon 09:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - finding sourcing that backs up the article is arguably difficult given the common name (there's an actor, a NYTimes photographer and a basketball player all named Jeffrey Wright just for starters). None the less, I was able to verify several of the references currently in the article and found that they were less about the man and more about his work, but non-trivial in nature. Others, the Smithsonian Reference in particular, were trivial but do verify the text. Would appear to have some notability as an environmentalist, so a search of journals in that field might turn up more. I have to say that I see little use for most of the tags at the top of the article, but perhaps the article has been recently improved. Shell ^babelfish 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, User:Roger Davies blocked User:Rokrunestone for personal attacks and harrassment. See their talk page for details. DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Keep -- Shell, could you add th links forthose you did identify? I think he's notable for the turtles & the trees, & we could remove most of the rest. Ruslik0 has already done some of it. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On notability and as to whether this article should appear in Wikipedia, the subject is notable as said previously for his work with turtles and the following 10 years with the environment, stuff about social networking should not be included nor should his personal life be included unless it can be shown to bear upon what he is notable for, he is not a politician where his moral values or personal life ever made it to the print media, his education does not even really bear upon his deeds and work except his non-profit management certification in 1989. I see several references were removed by User:Lacbolg in February, without clear reasons and I question his motivation. More references should be found especially since so many are available, over 100 in the print media. The subject was involved in making sure the Arbor Day observance remained in the public domain and I see he fought in Federal Court for this, it should be expanded and developed better regarding that court battle, I also think that several articles from the Wilmington News Journal articles confirming his work with turtles in 1989 should be cited and because the subject was working with children, schools and on habitat protection throughout the Mid-Atlantic. It also looks like in March of 1990 his Earth Day efforts clashed with the corporate world in a struggle with Dupont where he refused grants from the corporate community. These are important points because they demonstrate he is an activist, conservationist, environmentalist, and an educator, none of which have anything to do with his degrees or other achievements claimed by the original article. I will look forward to seeing a good editor or bio writer develop a good article over Wright. 201.209.205.71 (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)— 201.209.205.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After reading the commentary here I looked at the history and agree that LACBOLG is acting in an emotional and over critical way and has made and deleted frequent comments which can be seen in the histories of the article and even here at the deletion discussion, something is really fishy and this should be followed up by administration, he must know the subject very closely or is acting in a retaliatory way to get revenge for something the subject did in real-life. That is really ashame. 201.209.205.71 (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)— 201.209.205.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First, there is no requirement that editors themselves be neutral; the requirement is the written articles comply with the Neutral Point of View policy. Second, there are relatively strict sourcing requirements for biographies of living people, as per policy. It is perfectly correct editorial practice to ask for a reference to support a fact or opinion in an article, especially a biography of a living person. Third, in a rant now deleted, I and others were accused of "laziness" by for not running down non-web or pay-to-view references on the subject. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on the standard for inclusion of an article in the encyclopedia, the notability guideline, versus the standard for inclusion of material within an article, the reliable source guideline, in support of the verifiability policy. The basic notability standard is "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." The key part is significant coverage, which does NOT mean, "subject has a big clippings file" where his name is mentioned, but rather (as stated in the guideline) ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." While somewhat clarified, this is clearly a subjective standard. The material I have been able to access, I judged as essentially mostly "in passing" references to the subject in articles whose primary focus was not subject; essentially a name got mentioned in the paper, or a quote was attributed to subject. From the titles of the known sources that I was not able to access (and several years of editing experience), I judged them similarly, and concluded that the notability standard (probably) hasn't been met. On the other hand, in assessing "significant coverage", both quantity and weight do count somewhat; and subject or organizations he's associated with have been mentioned in news media more than once. It's a borderline case, which is why we're having an active deletion discussion. Making personal remarks in the discussion doesn't help. Studerby (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Studerby's studious examintion of the sources against our notability guidelines, which I find particularly compelling. It appears highly unlikely the subject (as opposed to the activities of the groups with which he associates) has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. Sourcing aside, some of this article is most odd. Sample: As a result of filing his publication in the Library of Congress several months later (unsourced) -- what does it mean for an author to file a publication at the LoC? (To donate it, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking in Google Books for the combination of "jeffrey wright" and any one of "earth expo", "earth day" and "delaware" brings no relevant hits that I can see. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do Wikipedia editors and admins only use free sources of information? Am I the only one that has access to the news archives? I am a researcher not an editor, I have found quite a number of sources, but this is because I work with several people and have access to more than most, I would think responsible writers of news and bios, etc should have access to extensible resources. After doing a bit more research I see the problems involve more confusion because the subject was called Jeffrey D. Wright early in 1989 when he was working with turtles which shows in a number of articles in Wilmington, Dover and South New Jersey. Then later it looks like the subject used D. Jeffrey Wright. Aside of that, all indications are that he had established 2 wetlands reserves in Delaware, cleaned up Nonesuch Creek with Governor Mike Castle, developed the first captive breeding program involving the spotted turtle and the bog turtle, and became involved with trees distributing 100's of thousands of trees in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Chicago, Reno, Lexington, Raleigh, Winston-Salem. I do not think any of the information about strategist or his work with policy institutes is significant or even his education or the fact that he was a pastor for a short time. But there is indeed significant information to be found. Citable, reliable third party sources all concentrated on him distributing trees from the LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, as I said in my previous comment over 100 sources but it doesn't look like Wikipedia editors want or have done enough qualified or reliable research because of the time it may cost them and much of the criticism here I think is based on general pessimism and one person raising points of contention, an administrator should really come in and clean this article up based on the references originally inserted by User:Ingenosa and knock it down to about 400-500 words. I reviewed a considerable number of bios in recent days and there are hundreds if not thousands that should be eliminated for lack of sources, but this is not one of them. There is plenty of print media about this subject and his work as the creator of special environmental efforts is not only notable but extremely impressive comparing it to all the junk that is on wikipedia and the stub articles that occupy space. User:Hoary is off base I see that the publication, Chelonian Conservationist was registered here in the LoC had an LCCN number and I think it means that Wright registered the publication here, Looks like many wikipeople like to assume stuff instead instead of getting to the heart of the matter. I really think this person is more important to our society as a whole for his work and accomplishments with trees than most single role actors and actresses so I will contact the User:Ingenosa and inform her of this entire resource list I have so she can fix the article and add the references she needs to, but all this pessimism here on Wikipedia, the short fused administrators, the stub article about people with no references at all is all ridiculous, makes me wonder if the LoC should block Wikipedia, but I guess we won't because Wikipedia is probably the second or third most useful resource we have for research. 201.209.205.71 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Wikipedia editors and admins only use free sources of information? / No, but most prefer it. ¶ Am I the only one that has access to the news archives? / No, I am sure that at least one other person hereabouts has ample access to news archives; but I'm just as sure that he has more important things to be spending his time on. ¶ Citable, reliable third party sources all concentrated on him distributing trees from the LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, as I said in my previous comment over 100 sources [. . .] an administrator should really come in and clean this article up based on the references originally inserted by User:Ingenosa and knock it down to about 400-500 words. / Whether or not a particular person is an administrator is utterly irrelevant. Instead, you could do this, complete with clear references to precisely specified articles in those newspapers. ¶ I reviewed a considerable number of bios in recent days and there are hundreds if not thousands that should be eliminated for lack of sources, [...] / Very true. See "other stuff". ¶ There is plenty of print media about this subject and his work as the creator of special environmental efforts is not only notable but extremely impressive comparing it to all the junk that is on wikipedia and the stub articles that occupy space. / Oh I think he merits a place if the veracity of the claims can be confirmed. (But please try not to be rude about all the junk, because creating it keeps people off the streets.) ¶ all this pessimism here on Wikipedia, the short fused administrators, the stub article about people with no references at all is all ridiculous, makes me wonder if the LoC should block Wikipedia / Well well. I wonder what it would mean for the LoC to "block Wikipedia". -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been quiet on the discussion since my original post - mostly because many comments were more of a discussion of my motives rather than a discussion about the article. I'm compelled to comment now because a previous (anonymous) editor made a statement that is a wonderful example of one of the problems I have with the article: "cleaned up Nonesuch Creek with Governor Mike Castle". This type of statement, (along with: "his captive breeding program as requested by President George H.W. Bush for his grandchildren" taken from the article) give the reader the image of the Governor or the President actually communicating and collaborating personally with the subject. I have done a great deal of research on the subject and have found no evidence of this. Now, I'll concede that the Governor probably called for volunteers to clean up creeks and such for Earth Day, and the President might have made public statements about the need for captive breeding programs, but that can't be used as justification for the notoriety of the subject as there is no referenced personal involvement between them. It's the writing that is misleading and inflates the status of the subject. There have been many comments made about hundreds of articles written about the subject but none have been added to the Wikipedia article about Mr. Wright. If he distributed over 10 million trees in 7 years perhaps he should have an article.. but simple addition of the numbers taken from the article put that figure much lower - and still unverified other than newspaper advertisements of the giveaways.Lacbolg (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the Article

I still have doubts, but on March 15, the subject of the article, Mr. Wright, posted in a discussion forum on Google Groups that the article was written by "my wife's cousin who wrote the article about me as part of a school assignment". Though Wikipedia guidelines suggest that it is still possible to write a factual, unbiased article about a relation, it does explain the problems with point of view.Lacbolg (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage does not appear to be substantial and subject seems to be tangential to sources topic.--Pink Bull 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Fox: Romantic Comedy of the Future

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

The article consists of almost entirely plot detail with no real world information about the topic from independent, reliable sources. Searches for "21st century fox" "Scott Kellogg" and "21st century fox" webcomic turn up no Google News ([26][27]) or Books ([28][29]) results. Google web searches ([30][31]) give lots of results from forums, wikis, blogs, other webcomics and art/fetish sites but nothing that appears to be a reliable source. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources and comic does not appear to meet any of the specific criteria set out in the guideline for web content. Without coverage by reliable, third party sources there is no way to include verifiable information in the article to give it the encyclopaedic context and treatment which would make it more than a simple plot summary or guide. Guest9999 (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this is a notable webcomic. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. cmadler (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Dragon NaturallySpeaking

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

Only a single source is independent of the subject, not satisfying WP:N. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - google searching for "Dragon NaturallySpeaking" brings up over 2 million results. Google News results bring up over 1400. The article needs sources, not deletion. The software is plenty notable. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 02:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current article not terrible and there are reliable sources out there to be found (examples: [32], [33], [34]). Loads more if you include Dragon Systems (examples: [35], [36], [37]). Guest9999 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that note that the Business Week article states that "Hands down, Dragon NaturallySpeaking is the most popular speech-recognition program among the disabled" - strong indicator that plenty more sources are likely to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Per the above.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:37, 12 March 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. and tag for de-spamming JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabarro LLP

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

I've reluctantly declined a speedy deletion on this one, as it's not quite spammy enough. I'm offering it up for judgment to the AfD editors as my inclinations are notoriously to deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well established article that of which meets guidelines. Western Pines (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's well established and meets the guidelines, but you want to delete it? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising: The firm works with high-profile clients across a broad range of industry sectors... All I see are attempts to claim inherited notability by non-notable listings and trade awards: has been recognised for their ranking in the Corporate Advisers Ranking Guide published by Hemscott as featuring in the top 20 listings of law firms advising stock market clients.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Was previously speedy'd and afd for the same reason. 16x9 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Currently the article reads as spam and needs rewriting, but this is a significant law firm in the english legal market and meets WP:ORG easily ( for example here is a long list of coverage in one of the major industry publications http://www.legalweek.com/category/law-firms/nabarro) so i will try and cut out much of the junk and then come back here. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regrettably because it's annoying to keep spammy articles, but the subject does appear to be notable and this page is not exclusively spam per G11. This looks to me to amount to significant coverage (even when you get rid of unreliable sources) amounting to notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Yes, spammy, but easily notable as one of the Top-30 UK law firms. THF (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to my mind the article contains some good content and is not solely outright promotional. Nabarro are a mid-sized UK law firm, the work they do and firm's movements are covered regularly by many reliable sources such as The Lawyer ([38]) and Legal Week ([39]). Basic information about the firm from independent sources can be harder to identify online - due to the volume of news - but will be available in different written guides and reports aims at professionals, graduates, etc. To sum up - the information to create a decent article is almost certainly out there and I don't think the current one is bad enough to warrant deletion at this time. Guest9999 (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker (paintball)

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

Article is unsourced, unlikely to ever grow, and appears to simply list the shapes that a bunker can be - which is all very generic. Jwoodger (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply put, the article is a long list of slang terms, and so, in my eyes, falls under WP:NEO, since these are all generic shapes given nicknames (triangles="dorito", cylinder="can", etc). If you removed all the NEO's, you'd be down to a three line article. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - The Neologisms are far too numerous. MMS2013 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Do paintball players say things like "Get behind that Dorito!"? Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carter (politician)

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

Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, notability not established GTD 02:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as conspicuously beneath notability standards for politicians. Mangoe (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors are not inherently notable and there are no significant reliable independent sources to show evidence of the general notability guidelines being satisfied. -- Big Dom 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. cmadler (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear case on WP:POLITICIAN and no claim to notability in general. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Mkativerata. Definitely not notable enough to have an article. ^Pepper∙_piggle 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN local councillor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable by any measure. - Galloglass 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think there's a consensus here, albeit a somewhat weak one, that this is a notable agreement. In particular noone has responded with a delete rationale in the week since Smallman presented his sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Campus Agreement

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

article has had refimprove since july 2007 and three years later it is still just as bad. list of participating schools adds nothing to article and if you remove the list you have three lines left. what is next? having an article on every software products eula? maybe adobe eula should be an article along with non-educational microsoft eula! Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it's a tricky case. Lots of schools have signed up for the program, but I don't think that alone makes it notable (would we expect to have an article about student discount programs for Dell computers or lab equipment?). Lots of university websites have information about the MSCA, but I wouldn't call that significant coverage. The article talk page links to half a dozen articles in student newspapers, all of which amount to "Hey, did you know you can get cheap MS software at the university bookstore?" There isn't even any substantial coverage on Slashdot, which would surely have paid attention if there was anything genuinely notable here. Jd4v15 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my position; see below. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major commercial arrangement in the industry. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that claim seems like original research Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bit of coverage here from when it was first launched [40]. Guest9999 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS covers the initial coverage Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is indeed a major commercial arrangement in the industry. This agreement covers the usage of Microsoft software on various campuses (civilian and military). Some sources to this would be:
- University: contract might be dropped because of low student participation and changes to available software
- 70- Campus Licenses, Department of the Navy
- OIT considers Microsoft Vista for campus computers
- Microsoft's new college curriculum, CNET
- Buying new kit? Do your homework first, Guardian
- Software an Individual Choice, The Harvard Crimson
- Ask SIPB September 1, 2006, MIT
- IBM Grant Gives Students the Power of Creation, The Spectrum Student Periodical

This license governs the usage of Microsoft products on campuses, and as such it is widely used...and thus most probably notable.Smallman12q (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy link is a procurement notice, the Harvard Crimson link is a brief letter to a campus newspaper, and the Guardian and MIT links include only passing mentions of the MSCA. To me, those don't qualify as significant coverage. If the point is to demonstrate widespread participation, the article itself already does that (assuming 60+ colleges and universities count as "widespread").

But. Most of Smallman12q's other links (the CNET article is the exception) are local news stories from campus newspapers, and there are more links like this in the article. I've been thinking about it, and I now believe these stories do constitute significant coverage, especially because there are so many of them from so many different institutions. It bugs me that we don't have better sources than that, but nonetheless, I'm changing my position to Weak Keep. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments that say something like "the sources are out there somewhere" are discounted as invalid. Per WP:BURDEN, those who want to retain contested content must provide the required sources or else the content is removed. According to that core policy, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In this case, no such sources have been found since 2005 and during this AfD, so it is deleted until the required sources are actually found. Sandstein 08:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesehouse

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

Delete. Claims to be the second talker ever, yet no reliable source is provided to back it up. In fact, no reliable sources have been provided since the article was created back in late 2005. Sigh. Not that it really matters, but the original author of this article was banned a few years ago for abuse/vandalism... On second thought it might matter given the unsupported claims. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The name of the talker is actually Cheeseplant's House, and as much as talker history is sourced anywhere, the claim is correct. It's properly referenced in other talker articles, including the Foothills article and the main article on Talkers. I'll try once again to find some sources for this. Kate (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base your claims in policy. The link you cited, www.cheeseplant.org/~daniel, is not even REMOTELY qualified as a reliable source for encyclopedia usage. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of that, which is why I said "I'll try once again to find some sources for this." Talker history is not well documented other than by the originators of the programs themselves, there are some .net articles from the mid-1990s but I've been so far unsuccessful in sourcing those. Kate (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, fair enough. If such sources can be located I have no qualms beyond that. JBsupreme (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nomination doesn't say its not notable, just that its poorly sourced, which i agree on.--Milowent (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to talkers article but this does seem to be a notable subject just needing clean-up and the right editor{s} to dig up where the history of talkers (whatever they are called universally or individually). This is true with the other noms in the subject area. -- Banjeboi 13:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry we do not merge content which is not supported by reliable sources. We delete that. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without reliable sources, the subject is not notable. It has been 12 days since sources were promised and none have been forthcoming. Policy requires deletion. No prejudice to recreation if sources can be found. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far no reliable sources have been uncovered. The keeps have given no policy based arguments for there being an expectation that sources will be available (even if not readily available). Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content of this article is factual. I'm a subject-matter expert. I'll provide more details within the next 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afoxson (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — Afoxson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resort (talker) - same type of article, arguments and sourcing issue. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Afoxson here and elsewhere. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Talkers, which has two relevant sources. –SJ + 07:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Japanzine. I'll redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin Sounds

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

Prod contested with the rationale, Gaijin Sounds is a national competition for all foreign musicians in Japan, over 2 million people. Of major cultural significance within the arts culture of the community. Problem is, Google doesn't seem to be able to back up that assertion. Even 外人サウンド doesn't return much more than false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'm finding very little about this that's not directly associated with the magazine that sponsors it or SeekJapan, which I believe is associated with the magazine (though I could be wrong here). I would expect more in English than Japanese, though, as the sponsoring magazine is in English. Will keep looking, but at the moment it seems a rather minor event. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ It just seems to be a promotion of a small magazine/website in Japan. The article itself takes references from the website that owns/promotes the event. If seekjapan.jp or Japanzine was notable enough to have their own articles, I could see them being a part of those articles. ~~However, I don't see any reason to think that either seekjapan.jp or Japanzine are notable enough for Wikipedia.~~ As it stands, it just seems to be a promotion for a local (the English speaking expat community in Japan that this event caters to is not that large) magazine's music competition, neither of which are notable as defined by Wikipedia. XinJeisan (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, arguing notability from absence of an article is dubious at best, especially when dealing with culture and literature of non-English-speaking countries -- Wikipedia has massive holes in those areas. Which is not to say anything one way or another about whether the magazine or website are indeed notable, but claim they aren't for this reason is not a good idea. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, these magazines and contest are geared towards the foreign community in Japan. Even the name itself states that. The competition itself does not allow a band that is all Japanese. seekjapan.jp does not have a Japanese version of its website, the rules for submission does not have a link to a Japanese version, etc. As said above, if you look up "外人サウンド" on google, it comes up with a few pages of hits, only a few of which directly relate to this event. Looking up ”外人サウンズ” comes up with one blog post from 2008. I don't know about Sam and Dave's in Osaka, but What the Dickens is a pretty well known expat bar in Tokyo. I think that an event that seems to be marketed towards English speakers should be able to be sourced in English for the event to be notable. If not, it should have links to the vernacular, in this case, Japanese language sources or easily found Japanese langauge sources. I don't want to be harsh and just say delete, or that google is the only way to find notability, but, for a fairly new event, you would think if it was important even to the Japan-expat/english speaking community, it would have more visibility in English or Japanese. I am just saying that there would be a case to merge this article into an article about seekjapan.jp or Japanzine, but, neither of those have a page, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason for them to, as well.XinJeisan (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Japanzine has an article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops XinJeisan (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything substantive outside of first-party references, just stray mentions, and not enough of them to suggest this is a notable event. Unless someone comes forward with something, it's delete for not passing WP:N. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and then Redirect) to Japanzine. The article on Japanzine already contains most of the information in this article, just a little less detail. The references provided above probably warrant inclusion in another article, and Japanzine is the logical place for it. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my opinion then to Merge (and then Redirect) to Japanzine per Lear's Fool and my own argument above. XinJeisan (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Japanzine would be acceptable. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:11, 12 March 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor

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

Non-notable software, unreferenced article, created by a single-purpose-account (see User contributions: Edavisee), most likely to advertise the product Regression Tester (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence this product "has received significant coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [41], [42], and [43]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you feel any of those qualify as "signficant coverage." I'm just not seeing it. — Satori Son 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [44], [45], and [46]. Abdulmiller (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the comment above by Abdulmiller, pointing to the reviews—firstly, the first link is an anonymous discussion, not a review. Web forums, chatrooms or neighborhood gossip really do not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Any spammer can post anything like this in any public discussion. Secondly, TopShareware.com, CoreDownload.com or iSoftwareReviews.com cannot be taken seriously, they are not reputable sources. Wikipedia requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Now, TopShareware.com or iSoftwareReviews.com do not even have an "About Us" section anywhere—that is, they don't even say who they are. They don't even have an e-mail address, only a contact form. This is a common feature of hoax websites. In other words, any group of spammers can run a "SuperDuperDownload.com" website and "review" their products there. And this article, just like its AVS Video Converter cousin, is obviously self-serving, created by a single-purpose account only to advertise the product. In fact, it belongs to a circle of nearly identical products that their author keeps spamming just about every multimedia-related Wikipedia article with.—J. M. (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry to hear what you said about my comment, maybe you can see significant coverage in reliable sources on the "References" of the article. And about the first link, I don't understand what you said("Any spammer can post anything like this in any public discussion."), Because these comments date is from 2006-2008, I think it is from customer's words, it is fair with fact-checking and accuracy, so I post it here, I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth. and the topshareware.com is online since 2002, Alexa Traffic Rank:984, and CoreDownload.com or iSoftwareReviews.com review is from their editor, I don't know why "they are not reputable sources". and I noticed that you give Nominated the article for deletion AVS Video Converter on 26 February 2010, but when the article added the significant coverage in reliable sources, you keep it. Now this article added what you want, why not treat this article like that, and if you think this article is obviously self-serving, created by a single-purpose account only to advertise the product.But why most of similar articles Total video converter,Prism Video Converter, Emicsoft DVD Ripper, Aimersoft DVD Ripper, ImTOO DVD Ripper, Movavi Video Converter can be keep? I don't see any significant coverage from these articles. — Abdulmiller 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Wikipedia is based on file pillars, and the basic rules are non-negotiable. One of the most basic policies is verifiability, which means citing reliable sources. No, internet discussions do not qualify as reliable sources and it is clearly explained there—see the self-published sources section. Anonymous web forum posts are not verifiable, anyone is free to post anything, so I can say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" in any discussion forum (in fact, this is exactly what spammers do all the time) and nobody in their right mind would use this as any kind of encyclopedic proof. The year/date is completely irrelevant, too. As for the other products—this discussion is about the AVS Video Editor, so let's keep it on-topic. The "similar articles exist, too, so what about them?" argument should be avoided in AfD discussions. The other products will have their own AfD discussions very soon.—J. M. (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I did't see someone say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" on the topshareware review, I think that it has the ability to divide spam and truth, maybe my review is tiny prove, maybe you would believe Joe Chill or you can view "References" for get more info Abdulmiller 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: It is completely irrelevant what anyone says in that discussion. Anynomous internet discussions are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia and it is clearly described in the Wikipedia rules. Period.—J. M. (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joe Chill's sources sell me. They're not the most non-trivial I've ever seen, exactly, but they're pretty good. The book sources, in particular the third one, are encouraging, and in conjunction with a review from a good source I'm satisfied that the subject is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't read (and therefore can't evaluate the reliability of) the two book sources as they're not in English (don't even know what language/s they're in). Without those two, I would definitely say "delete". All the other sources seem to be either self-published by the company or user reviews (not WP:RS). cmadler (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The PCPro reference is neither self-published nor a user review, just in case that has any impact on your thinking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Just like Satori Son, I don't think a short mini overview on a single website counts as "significant coverage". This does not make the software notable IMO.—J. M. (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - That's not the only coverage Joe Chill supplied. I would agree with you without hesitation, otherwise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Addendum to above comment: aside from the two books, which I don't feel that I can evaluate, the rest of the coverage is self-published, user reviews, or otherwise trivial coverage. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that this magazine is notable, because there are reliable sources that are independent of the subject that have noted it. Therefore while the article may need editing, it is not necessary to delete it. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Fantastic Man (magazine)

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

Semi-spam for non-notable small-circulation magazine Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided in the article include substantial articles in The New York Times and The Times about this magazine. How does that not meet our notability guidelines? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The magazine is notable. Jack Schlederer^Talk _Adds 03:33, 12 March 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) 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Danette

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

Non-notable minor actress who has played indignificant parts only (eg "Woman #2 in window"; four different parts in different episodes of a series). Fails WP:ENT, which calls for significant roles. I42 (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leila had a significant career from the 80's until 2003, and is made more notable by the fact that she's a centenarian. Silver Buizel (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the references that assert notability? All we have at the moment is imdb (not reliable) and a local news article. I42 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A search finds those sources. The article's current lack is a reason to add them or tag the article for them... but that lack in the article itself is not an ipso facto reason to toss an improvable article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a sourcable television and theater career when in her 80s and 90s is definitely notable. [47] [48]. For instance, in a 1980 review of Eden, the New York Times wrote "Leila Danette is a hilarious cross between Little Nell and Nell Gwynd". In 1996 the New York Times reviewed her in Marion X as ""completely endearing as Miss Mary". With sources available to improve the article, there is no reason to call for its deletion. She meets both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. I am concerned that a sourced and improvable article was sent to AFD only 3 days after its creation, rather than being tagged for improvements and allowing editors time to address concerns through regular editing. Or has WP:ATD been rendered historical? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable enough career. Multiple appearances on some shows. Plus news results of her found. Dream Focus 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had to rewrite the entire article since it was directly copied from this cited source. I attempted to leave as much content as as possible in an effort to not disrupt this discussion, but that was a bit difficult as I had to start from scratch. Pinkadelica ^♣ 11:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have had a notable enough acting career and has received coverage in publications such as the New York Times, so seems to pass the notability guidelines. -- Big Dom 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, numerous credits, rewrite and sources et al. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 13 March 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) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trance (Wildstorm)

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

Unreferenced fancruft on a minor character. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the character list at Gen¹³. Doesn't meet WP:FICT at all. From what I can find, he's a very minor character. I'm not even sure he needs to be on the Gen¹³ page, but I'll leave it at that. avs5221 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a very minor character, not even mentioned in the main article about the series. Continued lack of references and article being almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective further suggest a lack of notability. cmadler (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article. -- Big Dom 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic has not received coverage in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 12:30, 13 March 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 Charles Jencks. Pretty much all the content in this tiny stub of an article is already included in the target - the article history has been left intact in case there are any further items to merge. ~ mazca ^talk 10:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Modernism - Where is Post Modernism going?

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

Appears to be a non-notable book. Swarm^(Talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, although perhaps only marginally at this time. The Royal Academy hosted a public debate centered on this book. It was also briefly reviewed in Architect. Studerby (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No indication that this event reached the "general audience" wisely required by the books notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Adding the book as a sub-heading on Charles Jencks' page.Default this (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charles Jencks, the books's author.--Pink Bull 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Charles Jencks article. No evidence that the book passes notability guidelines in its own right, but it is certainly worthy of a mention on the author's article. -- Big Dom 20:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Baptist Church, New Jersey

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

Non-notable church. Article is written like a personal reflection, is unsourced save for a link to its own website. Deprodded without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:N, and churches, however devout their members, have not been found to be inherently notable in past AFDs. Found only a few passing references at Google News archive and no significant coverage at Google Book search. Edison (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a suggestion nor an unsupported claim to notability. Nothing on the church's own website suggests notability either. cmadler (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Archie and Jughead attend services, I'm not sure how this is more notable than any other church. Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources means that this church fails the general notability guidelines and nothing in the article infers notability. As far as I'm aware, churches are not inherently notable. -- Big Dom 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dundas

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

Non-notable filmmaker lacking GHIts and GNEWS. No evidence of awards noted in article. Appears to fail WP:BIO and others. ttonyb (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for lack of sources. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources can be provided for the filmmaker's asserted yet unlisted awards, and IF they are found to be notable, I am willing to reverse under WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided. No reliable sources found when I searched. Vague assertions of awards are made but with no specifics. He is apparently best known for his documentary work according to the article. A search for his name plus is 2009 documentary "I'm Caravaggio" resulted in four unique hits on Google. It is apparently something posted on Myspace. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 15 March 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. There's a good argument as to why this isn't a suitable merge candidate. The coverage does appear sparse; but there's no consensus to delete here - I would strongly encourage work to find additional sources to demonstrate notability here. ~ mazca ^talk 10:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome Subtitles

(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) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into GNOME--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two different articles in a French magazine. [49]

Issue #40 (March/April 2007) of Linux Pratique features a 2-page article covering funcionality from Gnome Subtitles 0.1, as well as some basics of working with subtitle files. A thumbnail version is available (Gnome Subtitles is in pages 26 and 27).
Issue #3 (August/September 2008) of Linux Pratique Essentiel features an article covering funcionality from Gnome Subtitles 0.8. A thumbnail version is available (Gnome Subtitles is in page 9).

--Ondertitel (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles cited by Ondertitel constitute significant coverage in my opinion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into GNOME Jack Schlederer^Talk _Adds 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT MERGE this has nothing to do with GNOME! It's like saying you would merge Adobe Photoshop into Windows XP, just because it runs on Windows. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge for reasons already mentioned.--Ondertitel (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. All (independent?) articles are in one obscure source. Pcap ping 22:23, 17 March 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. Pretty blatantly non-notable and insufficiently referenced BLP. Black Kite 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juanita Anushya Francis a/p Jacob

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Juanita Anushya Francis a/p Jacob

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

Un-notable and lacks sources. Potential COI and POV, too. Bejinhan Talk 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Bejinhan Talk 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kepp~~Neutral per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. Winning or coming second in America's Next Top Model seems to be accepted as conferring notability, so why should we treat a winner of Malaysian Dreamgirl any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Malaysian Dreamgirl article is not even notable(there's not even a single reference there) and nowhere compared to America's Next Top Model. Just google it out. There's barely any ghits on it. Bejinhan Talk 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't notice yesterday that Malaysian Dreamgirl is an Internet-only show not on broadcast TV, so I'm withdrawing my keep opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 12 March 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) 05:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki2Touch

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

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Yes, it allows the iPhone to access Wikipedia, but the article does not assert that Wikimedia had anything to do with this software. Additionally, running it requires a jailbreak. Unless reliable third-party sources can be found, it will be a delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how it requiring a jailbreak has anything to do with anything, but I also don't see substantial coverage in reliable sources when I try to find them. I'd change pretty swiftly if someone else has better luck, however. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of signifcant coverage in reliable sources means that this software fails the general notability guidelines. -- Big Dom 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mentioned in Mashable "30+ Apps For Jailbroken iPhones and iPod Touches", otherwise the best sources I've found are Apple iPhone school and hack the iPod Touch. There may be others. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The similar Project of Patrick Collison got some response in the media: link to his page. At this time it was no commercial product but you had to jailbreak your phone too. Now you can get this software in the appstore. I don't like it because it has no pictures, no formulae, no templates and it is very slow. It takes usually 10 seconds to find the article.

So far there is now way to install Wiki2Touch without a jailbreak because of the webserver running in the background, but there is a code.google project to make it a standalone program. Still you need a way to copy your files to the iphone. Now this is done with SSH, and you need afc2add. Wiki2Touch has nothing to do with Wikimedia - the second time Blanchardb mentioned it - well, noone said something like this. Why should it? I don't know the relevance criteria for the english Wikipedia (already hate the german ones). In one month I had 37 downloads for the english wikipedia data files (1 year old) and 90 for the german one (on sourceforge). On youtube there are several videos how to install wiki2touch and generate your own database. If you like to delete it, please transfer this article to my user name space. BigDom mentioned the general notability guidelines and a lack of coverage - you decide, it might change in the future.Saiht (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It might change in the future" is not for us to determine. If it does change in the future, then a Wikipedia article on this software will have to wait for that future to become the present, per WP:CRYSTAL. If the software does not currently meet our notability guidelines, that means it is too soon for Wikipedia to have an article on it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:19, 15 March 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.