Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 26

< 25 September	27 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Singh Dahiya

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

Of the 6 sources, 4 are books written by subject himself, and a 5th is just web excerpts of one of Dahiya's book. The 6th source isn't unambiguously about Dahiya, but even if it is, 1 independent source is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. A Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything else significant. As such, this person does not seem to meet WP:BIO and should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This author has written a few books which support a rather speculative view of Jat history - one which is not generally accepted. Even if the article is retained, it should be carefully edited to rewrite material such as: "Also, Arnold J. Toynbee, the highly reputed historian of Anglo-American origin, noted:..." which seems to imply some sort of authority for him because of his "Anglo-American" origin. Also, false and unsupported statements such as: "Most Chinese, Western and most Indian historians refer to the Guti as ‘'Yuezhi’'." need to be heavily qualified and referenced, or removed. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that he trained or worked as a historian in any way. An amateur writer, apparently purveying a nationalistic pseudohistory. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is very poor, he appears not to be much cited by academic historians/anthropologists, and his interpretation of events appears indeed to amount to pseudo-history. Which would explain the lack of recognition. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of these theories have been discussed (courtesy of other articles) at WP:FTN and the point is they aren't notable fringe, so the author even less so, as also seen by the lack of any reliable source, either news or scholarly coverage. For what it's worth, this is also part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101122. —SpacemanSpiff 21:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Bhim Singh Dahiya is author of following published books:Jats, the Ancient Rulers: a clan study, Aryan Tribes and the Rig Veda, History of Hindustan Vol. I, History of Hindustan Vol. II, History of Hindustan Vol. II. In addition to above books on history he has published number of papers. He is thus author of multiple published sources with wide circulation. He has made a widely recognized contribution in specific field of Jat History and the history of India. He has originated a significant new concept in the history and migration and origin of Jat people. He is member of Indian Revenue Service which is a reputed service in India. Those in favour of deletion of this article should fist go through his writings and then suggest any thing. How can we decide about an author without reading his creations.

I have observed one point here that a group of certain biased people have assembled to delete content about Jat history and Jat people which needs to be stopped and a neutrality of Wikipedia has to be maintained. I strongly support to keep.burdak (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Read a book of this author in addition to his article on sites like Iran Chamber Society :History ,his work is based on extensive research and clears identity of Moriyas and many other ancient groups about whom little was known earlier.Regarding Yeuzhi,Guti Jate same observation is made by many other eminent scholars like Alexander Cunnigham .I suggest a strong keep for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.93.139 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the keeps, the reason we can recommend deletion is because simply being an author does not necessarily make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This would be true whether the author was writing on Indian castes, ancient Chinese pottery, or modern French pop music. In order to prove that the subject is notable, you need to show that other reliable sources have already discussed the author in significant detail. If you know of any sources that talk about Bhim Singh Dahiya, not written by him directly (and not just copies of his work like the iranchamber.com site), then please let us know, or add them to the article, and, if there are enough such sources, the article will be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this author has written after extensive research, many hidden things about the ancient history have been disclosed with great logic. I don't think it makes sense to delete the article about such a great author. I don't understand who are the people and why do they envy of such a great author and want to get deleted a small introduction of the author. Wikipedia, please beware, a group of some members is working against a community, don't fall prey of their tactics I recommend a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.75.82 (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 significant questions raised about the verifiability of this article make the case and consensus for deletion overwhelmingly strong. Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bone spectacles

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

Orphan article backed solely by a single Iranian research paper of extremely dubious quality. Lacking other references even within the world of woo-woo, I see no support for promulgating this bit of Persian Forteana. Mangoe (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:REDFLAG claim that even the OOPart crowd hasn't bothered to recognize. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree REDFLAG. A formal report was just published last year and there has yet to be any scholarly response that I could find, so an article is probably premature. (Not directly relevant, but the formal publication is not convincing at all - anytime an archaeological find is published in a national journal of ophthalmology, it is not a good sign.) Agricolae (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article cites six sources, mostly described as in Persian (presumably Farsi). I would guess that these consist of an archaeological report of 1962 on the excavation and one article interpreting the find, whose conclusions have then been repeated in several books - tertiary sources, but still potentailly WP:RS, and in a 2010 journal that might only be a trade rag - I may be wrong. The excavation report will be a WP:RS. The interpretation article is presumably from an academic source, which will also be WP:RS. Whehter the interpretation is correct is a different question, but without a source that questions it, a WP article doubting the conclusions would be WP:OR. I agree that the find is an oddity, but if not spectacales, what is it? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mask, perhaps. But anyway, of the nine references I see, the second is certainly spurious (if Daniel Boorstin wrote about bone spectacles, we wouldn't have waited forty years to find out about it), and I would assume that the third is as well. Really, the only possibly valid reference here is Burney's report, and while I do have access to JSTOR it is reasonable to expect a page number. The Farsi version of this article has the ophthalmology reference and a second paper by some of the same authors, and none of these other references, so I don't think these other Farsi citations would prove germane if they were followed through. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further and say the Opthalmology paper seems to be the only source making the extraordinary claim that spectacles existed in 3000 BC Persia. There's no evidence that Burney believed he'd found spectacles. The authors state they only "studied" Burney's excavation records of bone artifacts unearthed at the site, and found: "Professor Bernie had been quiet on the issue, yet, Dr. Sarfaraz had believed that one day, it would be proved that they were spectacles." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been reported on the fringe theory noticeboard that Burney's paper does not say anything about this object being spectacles. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{sorry for some duplication of what others have said - it took me so long to type this response that there have been some edit conflicts.} The recent article says that the author of the 1962 archaeological report "has been quiet on the issue" suggesting that the 1962 report is not an RS for these being spectacles. It also says that the author of the more recent report "had believed that one day, it would be proved that they were spectacles," which makes it sound more like it is presented more as a suggestion than a scholarly determination that they are spectacles. Given that these are the two authors represent the primary record, I have to wonder what, exactly, is being said in the various cited 'History of Archaeology' and 'History of Science' works. It is a little hard to tell from their citation, but they look like translation into Persian from English-language references, yet try as I might, I am not turning up originals via Google search that say anything about ancient spectacles at this site. That leaves us with the most recent report, but a journal of ophthalmology is not a reliable source for an archaeological discovery. I don't know if it is a trade rag, but it's certainly no JAMA. Such claims are not uncommon in science, but they are treated more like curious suggestions unless/until they get evaluated by the broader field, and I see no indication that such an evaluation has taken place. Without some response from the archaeological community, there is nobody to look at the article and say how bad it really is, and it is. Parts of it are barely comprehensible due to an issue with the translation, but where the underlying logic is clear, it is circular or flawed. (I could go on for a paragraph on the ridiculous nature of the hypothesized stream-tumbled quartz lenses alone.) I get the distinct impression that this is a fringe interpretation, suggested by one researcher in a 'wouldn't this be interesting if it was the case' kind of way, and then bought into by a small group of people with an occupational vested interest in that particular interpretation, and not accepted by the broader community. I may be wrong, but the lack of coherent and detailed citations (e.g. "5- Sarfaraz.A.A. is main archaeologist in Excavation at Yanik tepe, Azerbaijan1962: third preliminary report") and the language issues make it difficult to tell. FRINGE material making extraordinary claims doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. At most it deserves a line on a page about the excavation saying that they discovered an object that some have interpreted as ancient spectacles. (As to your question of what it is, that depends on whether it was really found on the nose of the skull, as indicated in the ophthalmic journal. If so, it was probably a burial mask, the absence of any sort of strap or lens attachment militating against functionality.) Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly REDFLAG stuff. The citations are confused and the claims are not properly sourced. The thing looks like some type of face mask. There seems to be no actual evidence that it ever held lenses. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and what has been said above. Very Red Flag type article of dubious quality. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Speedy Delete. Kwsn (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E4education.in

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

Notability concerns per WP:CORP. RA (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I can't any sources at all about this company, nothing on Google News either. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an unremarkable website - it's been deleted speedy deleted once already. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable site and an attempt at promotion (note the username of the article's creator and the name of the alleged owner). The site is currently non-functional: [1] . As evidenced by Website Informer, it's little more than an attempt at a business directory: [2] --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Has been speedied twice already. I've just deleted two articles about the founder of this site (different caps) under A7. I can't access the site, ~~which might have something to with the domain registration having expired nearly a month ago according to http://www.webtrafficagents.com/Whois/www.e4education.in~~ but I've struck that after finding another source to say the registration has been renewed. Have now managed to get in a different way. Looks reasonably well designed, but I can't find any reliable coverage to say that they actually do anything. Willing to change my mind if someone can produce references other than Facebook & Co. (Altered post) Peridon (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre evgrafov

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

Doesn't seem notable Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 11:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pro-ana and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-eating disorder

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

Advocacy article, contested PROD. While there might be an article for this title, this isn't it. Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opinion/original research. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Pro-ana. Pro-ana already covers almost all of the material in this entry. Pro-mia redirects to pro-ana, (I thought they were separate pages) so there's no reason that this can't redirect to Pro-ana as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camera Camera (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album)

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

The article is about a musical album with no sources. Usvi Kasine (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find heaps of sources indicating that this album exists. Are you sure it is not notable? Mar4d (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exists ≠ notable. The existence of the album is not in contention. Rather, the main question is whether it is covered by significant, reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Zero relevant results on Google News Archive. Goodvac (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable album. It exists, but that means nothing with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable album. No relevent results found according to WP:NALBUMS.Umair Aj (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bellavia

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

Non-notable politician. Entered and lost a special election to fill a US House of Representatives seat. Never actually held any office. While his military service is commendable, it does not rise to the level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bellavia is highly notable. Best selling author, political,and war hero. Have you been nominated for the medal of honor. This is just political vandalism calling for deleting this page. Shameful behavior. - Burt Signed by: Ghfkghdkfhsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Bellavia is a politician who has never held office. I will admit that on further examination, Bellavia's military career does appear to be distinguished and well-documented. For this reason, I withdraw the nomination. I will open a discussion on the talk page about the extent of the political section of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -- see comments above. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hanes

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

Self-published author, fails WP:BIO. Google search on "Tony Hanes" poet shows no significant coverage from reliable sources - mainly social media profiles. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article is solid with new added links and two sources for interviews where his work can be heard or talked about. There are pages and articles with less information and no other links to different resources that are current in the eyes of wikipedia and are not up for deletion. I would seriously consider leaving this article. I just did several searches myself for Tony Hanes, Anthony Hanes, Anthony Chavon Hanes, An Abstract World Emotions, and several sites were able to be viewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.214.126 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — 96.10.214.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi -- which of those sources do you feel are "reliable sources", withing wikipedia's policy, sufficient to evidence notability? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability shown or found. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked one of the books so far (An Abstract World Vol 2) and found that it is self-published (AuthorHouse). It is the only one currently listed at Amazon (which is better than not being listed there at all...), but that does not itself indicate significance. Poetry is an even harder field to achieve notability in - worse than fiction. I applaud the courage of Mr Hanes in trying, and wish him success, but we here at Wikipedia cannot help him up the ladder. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant spamming. All the links, references or otherwise, are a list of sites to purchase books, or to reference to authors own books. No secondary reliable sources that adequately establishes notability Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant or reliable claim of notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of modes of mechanical ventilation

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

Recreated article which is virtually identical to recently WP:PRODed version deleted based on no sources suggesting notability. The article lacks context, links, and clues which would help make it useful. It should be merged into modes of mechanical ventilation. —EncMstr (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was previously in modes of mechanical ventilation but the amount of sections is becoming overwhelming, I recreated the page with citations. Context can be corrected and appropriately linking it into related articles is en-progress. However, it is very blatantly notable and accurate and an important inclusion into wikipedia. It is unfortunate that it was removed before and it would be ridiculous to remove it again. The purpose for its creation was a split from modes of mechanical ventilation because I read in the Wikipedia guide that tables fitting this particular description should have their own home. I will attempt to include its existence in other pages, but I don't think that it should be the mission of so many admins to destroy (accurate) information just because there are very few editors in the genre able to fit your timeline for explaining ourselves; last I checked wikipedia is not worried about ink. Je.rrt (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or reintegrate back into the main article. Obviously encyclopedic in nature. If this is important for the main article, it should be linked from there at least with a see also. Spinning Spark 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark, unless deemed essential to the main article (which would be the only good reason for reintegrating such an obviously self-contained subsection in a long article) TheGrappler (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Grassotti

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

Non notable amateur golfer who fails to meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Athlete#Golf. PROD removed with the explanation "Please don't delete this page. I am a close relative of Massimo Grassotti, this is an amazing opportuity for my cousin. He's an amazing golfer. Please dont delete!", which somewhat misses the point. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Tewapack (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He hasn't even played well enough as an amateur to have a World Amateur Golf Ranking, see rankings here. Tewapack (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given.- William 23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he had an "Appearance in french Golf Magazine (Referred to as "Swing de Pro")-2010". And someone scanned in the page from that magazine to prove it. [3] So not all sources out there are in English or even online to search from. Dream Focus 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable however. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that until someone searches in other languages, and even then you can't be certain what coverage they have had or not, since many reliable sources are not online and searchable. If the guy's cousin is watching the article, he can ask him if he has ever done interviews anywhere, and then let us know where to look. Dream Focus 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I see that you have done that, but I think the article smacks of someone who might have potential but doesn't seem to have achieved very much yet and is probably not notable at this time. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two references have now been added to the article, neither of which appear to be reliable sources. There is a lot of effort going on here to try to make the un-notable, notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited notability - not yet a professional , maybe later, but not right now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ATH. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) Mt king ^(edits) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mildenhall Cricket Club

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

Unsourced article about a cricket club which doesn't play in an ECB Premier League, so is deemed non-notable by WP:CRIN. It also fails WP:CLUB and WP:V. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The club played in the EAPL premier league until 2008 and just missed promotion back to that league this yearTony cornell (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The club did indeed play in the EAPL Premier League in 2008, so meets requirements. Laziness on my part for not checking, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is A Battlefield: Poem

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

Bringing this to AfD after declining my own prod (found it had already been prodded previously). The author of the poem is apparently notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia Tony Hanes, but I don't feel the poem needs an article by itself. I've removed the text of the poem from the article as a copyvio (and removed a copyvio tag). Peridon (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. And I question the author's notability and will be PRODing him shortly as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claim of notability, even if the poet himself is notable, which is doubtful. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unremarkable poem from a self-published author. After Inks.LWC's PROD was removed on Tony Hanes by this article's creator, I have now nominated that for deletion as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Is a Battlefield#Poem. Poinkie (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why? Love Is a Battlefield is about the song, not this poem. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable poem by dubiously-notable poet. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the poem itself can be moved to wikisource.Curb Chain (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we do that when there is no indication of notability? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And when the text has been removed because of copyvio? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroford

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

Not of any significance. Read A7 Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a short stub that I'm just going to merge it into Ford Model T, where it is already mentioned. This stub doesn't provide a source but the equivalent page on de.wikipedia.org does. So what I'm really saying is that there are alternatives to deletion, especially when sourced material can be transwikied. Several Times (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't object to either that or keeping. I've just added the ref that dewiki uses. Not often I find a better referencing situation on one of the other languages. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significance is that it was a make of automobile manufactured for five years. Google Books shows several references. If automobile encyclopedias cover this car, Wikipedia should too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ford Model T as discussed above. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you merged it to Ford Model T, what would it contribute? Its a poorly written article & it has no significance. If you want to spend the time digging up facts on this car, feel free! I really don't think its worth it though. Dusty777 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor car model, a Model T variant. Your appeal to A7 is misplaced given that the latter is specifically limited to a narrow range of subjects, into which I would not say that car models would fall. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it poorly written? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing is easily edited. In this case, it was edited after the merge. Merging to a larger article makes sense when the smaller article remains undeveloped, as the smaller article is provided with context. Several Times (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a make and model of car, modified from another or not, just about falls above the notability threshhold in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ford Model T as discussed above. Let's not lose this tidbit of information, now that it has been gathered. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with Necrothesp's analysis. Also, being sold only in the UK, it could be considered as "swamped" by information if it was merged into the Model T's article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Rushbrook

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. With multiple major roles in BBC tv and radio productions (see eg [4], [5], [6], [7]) she easily meets WP:ENT #1. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable. A very recognisable face on British TV. WP:ENT defines notability as "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". A quick look at her imdb page will demonstrate how she meets that criteria. Incidentally, just "not notable" is not an good argument for deletion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive career meets WP:ENT. It was easy to find that the actress' work has made it into the enduring record and is easily verifiable. Not knowing if the nom researched her or not, what can be stated is that notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. We do not delete notable topics for lack of effort, and this one can be fixed over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable actress who currently has opening credits billing in The Fades. No good reason given for proposed deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. With that many credits, you need a better reason than "Not notable" to ever consider a deletion debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalski (band)

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

Band that doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Only a couple of mentions in local papers. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't only received 'a couple of mentions in local papers' their well known across the UK, Ireland, Japan etc. They've had Snow Patrol's singer, the BBC, The Fly Magazine saying amazing things about them on the radio. They've had a load of headline shows, supported some massive acts, a lot of festival performances, had a film made about them, released 2 well received E.P's/albums and singles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UndercoverSilverDust (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appear to be an up and coming band, but have yet to arrive. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources (and I emphasize reliable) to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if they gain more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of this material is unreferenced. I'm willing to believe that additional independent coverage does exist - though I did search and found nothing - but this article will need to provide them to survive. Several Times (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mi Delirio#Singles. Redirect all joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anahí promotional singles

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

Delete. "Promotional singles" that have zero notability, failing the requirements for independent articles per WP:NSONGS. Attempts to redirect were reverted, but there is nothing in these articles that really even warrant a redirect as they total lack content and reliable sources to merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar (that means delete) since there's nothing worth redirecting and the lack of sourcing means they fail WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Mi Delirio#Singles -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~. Redirect all. The articles contain practically no content and do not seem to satisfy the conditions set out at WP:GNG. Super Mario Man 15:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any reason why those !voting for deletion are not in favour of redirecting? Per WP:NSONG, when the song is not notable enough for its own article, it "should redirect to another relevant article". -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'm perfectly happy to change my !vote here. The overall effect is more or less the same. Super Mario Man 14:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, this discussion should have been relisted or closed by now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for closure or relisting here. Super Mario Man 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communications & Strategies

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

Contested prod. Scientific journal with no assertion of notability, all references merely point to websites hosting the journal's contents. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Keep Horrendous article... I have cleaned it up drastically by removing the long lists of names and adding some missing info. The previous text was a word-by-word copyvio of the journal's homepage (now linked as an external link). I have not checked the assertions that they are included in the databases listed. These are not all "hosting" sites, but most are academic databases. I am not sure, however, in how far these databases are selective and major, both requirements to fulfill WP:NJournals. Perhaps somebody who knows this field better can tell us this. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Change to "keep" per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The fact that their articles are indexed in databases isn't a claim of notability. It's like saying a book is in the card catalog of the Library of Congress. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same thing. The Library of Congress' catalog, although in itself a "major database", is not selective, and therefore does not meet WP:NJournals. Other databases, such as the Science Citation Index and MEDLINE, for example, are very selective about which journals they include and inclusion in one of those is generally accepted as sufficient evidence of notability. If the journal is in the listed databases and if those are selective databases, then that would be good evidence for notability. Just as we would speedily keep an article on an actor who won an Oscar, even if that would be the only established fact in the whole article on that article. --Crusio (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a legitimate academic journal. Not indexed in the most selective databases, but it is claimed to be indexed in several respectable databases of journals ~~(which, as Crusio says, are selective)~~. Has existed for 20 years, claims to be peer-reviewed, Google Scholar turns up papers published in the journal, etc. Current article has been trimmed back to a respectable stub. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I did find it indexed in REPEC = Research Papers in Economics. Did not check the others. --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do not think there are any actually selective indexes in this area in the sense of SCI. Scopus/WoS coverage for applied topics is very weak. EconLit is moderately selective, and might be sufficient. Proquest/Ebsco/Gale select to a certain extent, and are sometimes all there is for journals of this nature. I'd accept the combination as sufficient. (I could make a case for the inclusion of every one of the 5 or 6000 journals those aggregators include, on the basis that they are so widely available we should make an exception to notability) Looking at other possible criteria: the board of editors is a weak criterion, but some of them have Wikipedia articles. There are only about 30 holdings in WorldCat, but it's primarily an ejournal, which tend not to get cataloged. But it has certainly published at least one famous paper. Tim O'reilly's What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software in v.1 has over 3000 citations in Google Scholar. Other indicidual papers have citations in the 30s . On balance, sufficiently notable . (edit conflict with Orlady, but my argument is essential the same) DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite ready to change to keep, but I fully agree with the {{Rescue}} tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG should count as a subject expert on the matter of journal notability! His argument is both informed and convincing. TheGrappler (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG makes a convincing case. Dream Focus 00:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Empires

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable Facebook/browser game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked for references using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found nothing more than primary sources, press releases, blog posts, and trivial mentions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not received any coverage by reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near meeting the notability threshold. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo City FC

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

How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable? Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I thought it was implied, to clarify my nom, the article does not meet WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the same way that some 22nd division amateur league in England is notable. Mohrflies (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As per all other teams that have played in the NPSL. JonBroxton (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every team that has ever played for the NPSL, even if for only one season, is deemed inherently notable, I would consider withdrawing my nomination pending non-sports editor comments (if any), even though I think it counts more as practice than as satisfying notability requirements. I would note, though, that Buffalo City FC doesn't appear to be listed on former teams on the NPSL article page, but maybe that's just an oversight.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The key thing though is ensuring the data on Buffalo City is accurate. The vast majority - if not all - of the sources quoted stem from Mike Share's own websites, which he himself edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Level 4 of American football is not notable per WP:FOOTYN. The above comments reek of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fourth tier of the United States soccer pyramid is notable as the highest amateur level. Giant Snowman 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominating comment is useless to me. "How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable?" There is no inherent "oh yeah, its not" response to this, it depends on coverage. TV shows that have only aired one episode have been found notable. It appears that every current(and a score or so former) team in the National Premier Soccer League has a page, i don't see an advantage of deleting this one and having a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smelling a hint of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can smell my farts if that suits your fancy, my main point is that the nomination statement is worthless.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nom has neither proffered a valid ground for deletion, nor advocated deletion, nor advocated any action at all. Come to that, there is nothing in any guideline precluding notability for a team that has existed a single season; there are hundreds of examples of the same which meet applicable standards. Ravenswing 10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get these kinds of !votes. If the nominator's reason for nominating the article is unpersuasive, that is not a rationale to speedy close the AFD, especially where other participants in the discussion have offered better arguments. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's lovely to be a punching bag.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the nominator has given an unpersuasive reason to delete. It's that the nominator hasn't given ANY reason to delete, nor even advocated deletion or any other action. That being said, it's not that the two Delete proponents have offered "better" arguments so much as they've expressed arguments at all. Nonetheless, a speedy close is a perfectly proper way to handle a broken nomination. In the nom's shoes, I would have worried less about hurt feelings than about fixing the AfD to reflect a proper nomination, complete with valid deletion criteria, but that's just me. Ravenswing 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it's a waste of time to argue with you. I gave a reason to delete. I just phrased it as a question instead of as a statement. I nominated several articles in this area at about the same time. Two have already been deleted. This one is apparently a closer call. What you should have done is simply stated your reasons for why the article should be kept rather than rant about the alleged shortcomings of mine for nominating it. I'm not "hurt", just annoyed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why one advocates a "Speedy Keep" result is through a belief that the nomination is deeply flawed and/or improperly tendered, on procedural grounds rather than on the merits (or lack thereof) of deletion. I'm somewhat flabbergasted that someone active in AfD, with over 14,000 edits, would need that spelled out, because people advocate Speedy Keeps only about several dozen times a day at AfD, and for just those reasons. Ravenswing 20:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed, and now you're flabbergasted. I feel better. What I've seen of speedy keeps is that they are usually made when the voter thinks the nomination is patently meritless, not for "procedural" reasons. I'm hungry now and want to have lunch, but I'll look later to see if you're technically correct, despite my personal observations. It sounds completely contrary to common sense to me, but a lot of editors here don't believe in common sense. You can take that as a mild dig if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy lunch (heh). WP:SK states the reasons for a speedy keep, not one of which meets your definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a very minor team in a very minor league. The WP:FOOTYN essay suggests that it is not sufficiently notable. There are virtually no independent sources describing the club. Even its External link to http://www.buffalocityfc.com produces a web site selling Viagra. Any information about the team can be captured in the article about its league (or, perhaps a new History of the league article). --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a record of the history of the NPSL, it is encyclopedic.--Feddx (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL will help explain why we don't keep articles for that reason.Mt king ^(edits) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a setup where any new team can buy a spot in the league just playing is not enough, this is a team that (according to the article) played for one year, it's only ref supports the existence of a successor club (Ontario United FC) so absent any WP:RS showing significant coverage, this fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not ground-breaking stuff, (and nor is 99% of Wikipedia's content), but it has historical notability. Deterence ^Talk 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A hell of a lot of terrible arguments above on both sides. At the very least, this is an early history of the franchise which becme FC Buffalo, not to mention a valid search phrase, and so a merge here should have been a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - which is the default position in such cases of minor notability, and create a redirect and merge whatever you want (less is likely more) to the parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the default position?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right. - redirect - just create it - merge - just do it - delete of the article is the direct result. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, those who sited Wikipedia:FOOTYN should be aware that is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so its fairly meaningless. If enough people supported it, it'd be promoted to guideline status. The fact that they only played one season then joined with Queen City FC who had played for two seasons, to form FC Buffalo which has thus far played for two seasons and is still around, isn't relevant. That article says the final team was "not a continuation of either franchise". It is part of a national organization, not just some local club. Dream Focus 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am not a copyright lawyer, my task here is merely to determine the result of this debate. Therefore any and all comments related to copyright were ignored and the issue of copyright was not considered while determining a result of this AFD. On top of that, arguments about the methodology or the quality of the poll are, as was rightly pointed out, not relevant. If there were sources discussing the methodology they could have been used to add such content to the article, so that is also not a valid argument and was not considered. Which brings us, like the vast majority of deletion debates, to the subject of notability. On that front, it appears to me that those advocating deletion have made the stronger argument. That the poll was published in a notable publication does not make the poll itself notable. As with any other topic, significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject is what is required, and we don't seem to have that for this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

200 Greatest Israelis

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

Isn't this just one long copyvio? Cf. with The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, which was formerly a reproduction of that list, but is now about the list itself. If I'm missing something here, I will withdraw... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. The YNet list itself is not notable. The number 200 is arbitrary. Categorizing some people a "Greatest" based on a vote with some undefined criteria is not objective, not useful and non encyclopedic. See also WP:NOTESAL. Marokwitz (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP should not repost primary sources. However the list can be linked 200 times and used as a source: "So and so is such and such a number on the 200 Greatest Israelis list published by Ynet in 2005."BigJim707 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. First, there is no copyvio issue (which is the nom's sole concern). It is the same as reflecting any poll--we reflect a great number of them -- that is the normal course. As in the List of Academy Award-winning films, and 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, and Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Without getting too technical, the key is: a) attribution; and b) format. As long as we have attribution (which we have here) and the format is not a mirror of the original format (which is covered by copyright -- we are also OK here), there is no copyright violation. Otherwise, we would be deleting all lists of Academy Award and Emmy winners and the like. Second, it is a national poll. Third, it is by a high-level RS. Fourth -- this is just the thing that readers have interest in. 13,000 readers in the last 30 days. That's something we should be sensitive to, under wp:commonsense.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as reliable sources are provided, it could not be any clearer that this is a list created by the source, not Wikipedia. We publish lists on a regular basis from other sources, and Epeefleche provides but a small fraction of the lists we already include as a matter of course. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche and this list is a fascinating time capsule and a reflection of the readership of that media. At number 10 is the winner of the Israeli 'idol' who bounced to relatively massive stardom. All 'top ten' lists and awards ceremonies are relative to the originator of the list. I might reconsider my vote if you add 100 Greatest Britons to this Afd. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, it's single source with very bad sample method and I doubt that the subject itself is of any notability.--Gilisa

That is your OR. --Shuki (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)(talk) 07:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentially a copyright violation of an arbitrary, non-notable news website poll from 2005. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 01:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as explained above, it is certainly not a copyvio. Any more than the indicated lists, or any other of the same nature that do not copy the format of any polls -- whether they be national in scope, or of people voting for Emmy Award winners or the like. That is why we are able to reflect such polls, and why multiple newspapers reflect such polls.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I said that it essentially is a copyright violation, not that it actually is. It is still an arbitrary, non-notable, proprietary news website poll from 2005. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 19:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Copyright is a rather specialized topic, I recognize. But in truth, as law professor Bearian indicates below, this is neither "essentially" a copyright violation, nor "proprietary". If it were, as mentioned, all Gallup Polls and Academy Award votes and the like would be as well. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991), in which it wrote (emphasis added): "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."[8] A screenshot of the list would, for example, be covered by copyright, but the mere listing of the fact of the 200 people chosen in the poll is not. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Delete - It's ridiculous to lean on one source only, whose poll represent nothing and we don't even know much about the full methodology in which it was done. This article create new very bad standard according which any poll that was done by and published in relatively large news website is legitimate nominee for new article (and we all know Wikipedia opinion on single source articles). I don't even elaborate on the issue of RS, because Ynet is certainly considered by many Israelis as website which represent certain POV-and it does matters when dealing with a poll. I don't think that this is a good article, it certainly stand bad standards. I think speedy deletion should apply here.--Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read again the source-it's a complete mess. First, the poll represent the opinion of Ynet readers only, they didn't randomly sample the Israeli population-rather it was self report by readers of Ynet who completed the poll from their own initiation so it wasn't even a random sample of Ynet readers, not to mention that we know nothing even about their average age (in serious polls you try to sample only people above 18, it's certainly not the case here). Second, they don't tell much of how they chose the nominees to be included in the list of the "Greatest 200". They do tell that they get a lot of recommendations on who should be included in the list of the nominees but they don't tell why many of those they mentioned as recommended by the readers were not included eventually as nominees though they should. In fact, we don't even know if the same reader could vote more than once-which is very probable with online polls in such sites. Sum it all: It's nonsense, delete it without hesitation. --Gilisa (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are a lot of lists like these on WP, representing a number of countries, therefore, there is no reason not to keep Israel's. They are also based on voluntary polling across the media. In general, I don't really think WP is the place for these types of lists, although they don't disturb me. To me, it's enough that each person on the list is mentioned as such (thanks, Epeefleche). --Sreifa (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sreifa, please address me to such list which is based on single source and refer to single poll. The notability of such poll is not much higher, if at all, than this of any daily headline report-so, should Wikipedia house article for every daily report in every different media channel? The answer is obvious. Single source articles are in any case not welcomed in Wikipedia and take in mind that Wikipedia is also not a news site and this poll have no other value than being some kind of news. For the sake of good standards I think it would be better if you consider this issue again.--Gilisa (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Grootste Nederlander, The Greatest American, or any other item in Template:Countries' greatest people TV series and media polls has such lists. --Sreifa (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid examples, the first was regular public poll the others are about TV series -and it's standard for every TV series to have article in Wikipedia.--Gilisa (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think Sreifa supplies fine examples of our long-standing approach to similar lists on wp. What the lists share in common, is that they are all the results of media polls (either TV or print media). And all have the same precise focus -- each is a poll of the "best" from country x. Most were apparently spurred by the British poll, in 2002. See: Argentina: El Gen Argentino • Belgium: Belg der Belgen / De Grootste Belg / Le plus grand Belge • Bulgaria: Velikite Balgari • Canada: The Greatest Canadian • Chile: Greatest Chilean • Croatia: Greatest Croatian • Czech Republic: Největší Čech • Finland: Suuret suomalaiset • France: Le Plus Grand Français • Germany: Unsere Besten • Greece: Great Greeks • Ireland: Ireland's Greatest • Italy: Il più grande italiano di tutti i tempi • Japan: The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan • Netherlands: De Grootste Nederlander • New Zealand: New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers • Portugal: Os Grandes Portugueses • Romania: Mari Români • Russia: Imya Rossiya • South Africa: Great South Africans • Spain: El Español de la Historia • Ukraine: The Greatest Ukrainians • United Kingdom: 100 Greatest Britons • USA: The Greatest American. And "otherstuffexists" allows us to look at such similar lists, as long as -- as is the case here -- that is not the only argument for keeping the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- while it is clearly not a copyvio, I am not yet convinced it's notable. For example, has the list itself been reported in the news? (For the record, I only found one source from Google News.) I'm open to both sides. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beerian, it wasn't reported on news at all - I doubt that many Israelis even remember such poll. In fact once in a year or two every almost every media in Israel perform such poll or closely related one -with different journals or sites having mostly different findings. It's not serious, really.--Gilisa (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one mention Google news archive search shows is just mentioning someone made that list. Unlike the other list mentioned, this isn't something giving a lot of coverage it seems. Then again, perhaps in Israel it was. If someone can search all Israel reliable sources and see if they list it, then we can determine if its notable or not. We can't be certain until someone who speaks that language, does a search. I believe all those people are also listed at List of Israelis so if we redirected the page, they'd still be able to find everyone, plus more. "Ynet is the most popular Israeli news and general content website." I wonder how many people actually voted. I look at the link through Google translator but don't see it. I assume it was a significant number of people, not just a hundred or so guys around at the time they were doing this. Dream Focus 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were 20,000 votes but most probably that much less voters because in online polls like that it's not uncommon that one can vote more than once. As for Rabin, if I remember right he was very surprisingly elected as the man of the previous civilian century by Time magazine[9] just because a small group of his fans manipulated the voting system, then his election was called off. Also, these "20,000" readers represent only those in Israel who read Ynet (and though it's the largest in terms of number of readers, there are many other Israeli news sites with large population of readers) and from their own will chose to participate in the poll..No, it's not notable. Also, they didn't include in the nominee list people who were strongly offered by their readers-so even the criteria to choosing the nominees for inclusion in this list is not clear.--Gilisa (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable primary cited news website poll list. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—notable list of notable people. I will quote myself from before: The article should have information about planning, execution and reception [of the poll], but the fact that such information is not yet present does not warrant any action other than eventually inserting it. The deletion rationale that the list is a copyvio is simply not true. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list itself is not notable as there are no third party secondary sources covering the list. If there were source actually talking about the list then an article could exist on that topic, but that isnt what this is. nableezy - 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after reading the comments above, I am forced to conclude that this list is not notable, since there are not sufficient reliable sources to document that it has become a notable list. A show such as The Greatest American is sourceable at least. This does not seem to be of that ilk. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion about the article yet, but some of the comments above are saying we shouldn't cover this because the quality of the poll is low. This is a non-reason. We do not decide to write articles on things based on our decision about the intrinsic quality--it would certainly make some interesting but interminable debates on musicians and some similar topics. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's see what the poll was about from the sources quoted in the article: "Newspaper tabloid poll", "a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet" and "a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet" (using English sources only). Absolutely ludicrous methodology that's unrepresentative of the population (for one thing, this was an online poll). Moreover, every tabloid has an online poll everyday. Nothing here shows how this poll is unique - refer to WP:MILL. Ratibgreat (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poll by media outlet of the country's largest circulation newspaper, and which since 2008 has been Israel's most popular internet portal, as measured by Google Trends. We have many such "Greatest" polls by parallel media organizations on wp, as reflected above. As DGG points out, the "quality" of the 20,000 vote poll is a non-reason. As to interest of the readership in this, the fact that over 600 readers viewed the article in one day -- before this afd -- suggest a high level of interest. And, of course, we have all manner of "Lists of notable persons from country x", where there is nothing more to the "choosing" than the fact that one editor picked the person for the list. Here, also, every entry is a notable person, by wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An online poll taken by 100,000 users show that 100% of the world use Internet." This joke shows the inherent systemic bias of an online poll. Once again, there are thousands of polls taken by the largest media outlets in any country everyday, making this a run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL). Ratibgreat (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the first two sentences as they seem to focus on a joke not rooted in what we are dealing with, this is a poll of 20,000 people, by the largest media outlet in a country, that attracted 13,000 views on wp last month, and that is part of a series of national polls of parallel nature that similarly attract interest and were largely (the press reports) spawned by the parallel British poll. It is similar to the "Notable People From Country X" lists that we have for all countries -- except that it is rooted in something other than "Editor X added the name", and has nearly half a dozen footnotes that refer to the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - moved to - Israeli news website Ynet's 2005 poll results of 200 Greatest Israelis- note - I still support deletion but the article name was not correct at all. A t least if you want to duplicate a worthless list here call it the crap name so that people know what crap it is. - this comment is onlty to the supporters of this list - User:Epeefleche User:Alansohn -User:Shuki -User:Sreifa and User:Ynhockey - are you guys all Israeli? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now moved to the more appropriate Ynet 2005 poll of 200 greatest Israelis. These types of polls run by the most popular news organizations are very notable, as attested by the multitude of coverage it received in all media outlets. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment -Thats "online poll" - This article is supported by six Israelis now including you, but there are currently nine delete comments all of which are not Israelis. - the lists a pile of trivial un-encyclopedic worthless crap only supported by users with a clear COI. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tabloid promotions are not independently notable. We have articles for all these people anyway. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged a number of previously articles previously mentioned, mainly for notability and needing third party references. Evidence that this class of thing can be notable is evidenced by good articles at Ireland's Greatest. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are several references in the article that verify the term's use, but I haven't found any articles from reliable sources that are go into depth about this topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this AfD is ridiculous, same as the renaming of the article. Considering this move, we should also rename The Greatest American into Discovery Channel's competition The Greatest American. The information about the Ynet poll's sample is available online. I agree that the introduction of this article is really short, but let's improve the article. I don't agree that it's copyvio as noted above. --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because The Greatest American exists doesn't mean so should this - refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think The Greatest American is independently non-notable, put up an AfD there as well. Just because that article is about Americans doesn't make it too sacred to put it up for deletion. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faigl makes valid points. As was indicated earlier, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists allows us to look at such similar lists, as long as -- as is the case here -- that is not the only argument for keeping the list. It says: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." (emph added). And we also have the various Gallup polls (e.g., Gallup's most admired man and woman poll, Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century), Time Magazine polls (2004 Time 100, and succeeding years), etc. (e.g., 100 Great Black Britons and Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll), that have wp articles which are referred to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are exactly zero secondary sources that discuss this poll. Not one. Each of the third-party "sources" used in the article only say something like such and such was voted one of the 200 Greatest Israelis of all time in a newspaper poll. None of them, not a single one of them, discusses the supposed topic of this article. We supposedly have requirements for what can be articles on Wikipedia. One of those requirements is that the subject is covered in third-party secondary sources. The claims that this poll has a multitude of coverage it received in all media outlets or that it is a notable list of notable people does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. Notability is defined by the coverage in the third-party sources. There is no such coverage so it is not notable. This poll received the exact opposite of a multitude of coverage. Nationalism should not be a reason to just make up some nonsense and act like it is true here. If this poll received actual coverage in secondary sources then there should be an article. If it did not then there should not be one. It is fairly clear, despite the efforts of linking to respectable looking sources that do not actually cover the subject of the article, that no such sources exist. Since that is the case this article should be deleted. nableezy - 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a Facebook post, I would've clicked like. Ratibgreat (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list. Secondary sources are lacking to show that this list itself is notable enough to justify an article. Edison (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely subjective list. Not covered in secondary sources, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no copy-violation issue. You can't copyright a list. --Kylfingers (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can copyright a list. See WP:FU#Text_2 and also Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51#Attorney_feedback. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:FU states, there may be copyright with such a list when it is selected in a creative manner -- an example would be a Siskel and Ebert Top 100 list. A poll is a different animal, reflecting factual data. That is why Academy Award polls and Gallup polls and the like are routinely reflected by media other than the collector of the data. As the guideline continues: "Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51#Attorney_feedback for your convenience, the courts have not nailed down in great detail the amount of creativity required for lists; it is her opinion that polls are likely to be protectable as well because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates "at least some creativity." She says, "Because I believe survey results can be protected under copyright law, any use of them should be guided by fair use principles" and reminds that "Merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use." She adds that "Another issue that you may want to consider on a case-by-case basis is that even if the lists/surveys are not copyrightable because they completely lack creativity, they may be protected by license agreements that bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission. Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results. Ratibgreat (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Law Professor Bearian (and I also have three decades of having practiced law in the US, and have dealt with this issue in regard to the use of financial data). And with the guideline itself. It states: "Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include." The limitation, for such lists, is that one cannot present an image of the list, or a xerox, or a screenshot. This is reflected as well in the US Supreme Court opinion quoted above.

In addition, practice makes it quite clear that such polls are not copyrighted -- her points would mean that media (and wp) would not reflect Academy Award award results, and Gallup polls, and the like. The media does (as do we). Even laymen without legal background can see readily that this is not treated as copyrighted material -- just look at all the Gallup polls and Academy Award results reflected in the media at large. As to licensing -- that is completely accurate if, and only if, there is a license agreement. As in the case of Standard and Poor's selling financial data to Morgan Stanley under a license agreement. That has nothing at all to do with the instant circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage of the online poll. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of copyright: WP:FU#Text_2. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:FU#Text_2 and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51#Attorney_feedback, as quoted by ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak show that lists, including those based on polls, can be copyrighted. Hence, this list, among notability problems, is a copyright violation as well. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can, and should, host polling lists in their entirety, but only if the list is notable (such as the multiple AFI greatest films lists, which have received significant coverage in the mainstream media as well as within film journals). Unlike the AFI lists, this list hasn't hasn't received much attention by reliable sources and nobody judges an individual's greatness by his presence on this list. It isn't significant and it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. No comment on the copyright issues, as I've seen arguments each way in the past and I'm not in the position to judge them. Them From Space 22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – No, it's clearly not a copyvio. And it's an important list of notable people. I think it would better for Wikipedia if we keep this article. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 04:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is the historical result for all of these subjective lists. This is a copyright violation and must be deleted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All polls and votes, from all the Gallup Polls to the Academy Awards, are of course subjective. We and the media at large (because they are not copyvios, as reflected in the above SC case) reflect them.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced lists of celebrities are fine. Biophys (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now named Ynet 2005 online poll of 200 greatest Israelis since Ynet and Ynetnews are the established online extensions of the reliable long-standing news source Yedioth Ahronoth in Israel. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kesgrave Hall School

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

This school web page should be deleted it does not meet the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) as listed in the WP:BEFORE page, this was a school who only about 150 boys in total ever attended, this page was written by former boys as a continuation of Indigo Jo / Matthew Yusuf Smith campaign to rubbish the school and staff, most of the text has now been removed by a moderator however this School should not have a web page and it should be deleted. Wlmmcf (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is a single purpose account whose only edits to date are in connection with this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per WP:NHS, secondary schools that can be verified to exist or have existed are automatically notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't go as far as Roscelese and say all verified secondary schools are automatically notable. However, there is a strong presumption in these cases that reliable sources exist, and established consensus favors keeping such articles in almost every case. Past vandalism of the article is not a legitimate reason to delete. That's why we monitor and revert vandalism instead of deleting vandalized articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I strongly disagree that all secondary schools deserve articles, but that seems to be community consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question : How is any of the stuff verified here ? where are the sources your own rules say should be quoted ? why do you want to host a page like this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmmcf (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nominators comments. I have no issues with voting as per uncited and limited notability even if it is against prior consensus - it already gets a small mention in the parent article - Kesgrave Hall#Shawe Manor - redirect there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article gives no indication of why this school is notable, and cites no sources that could do so either. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (or "Weak Merge"): Keep per above, but weak because it's a school that no longer exists. On that point, if the school no longer "exists", as such, but is the historical precursor to another school (Kesgrave_Hall#Shawe_Manor, which itself closed), then perhaps an option is to find the current incarnation of the school in the area and merge the information of Kesgrave Hall School (and Shawe Manor) into a history section for that school? ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 08:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is there is no current incarnation of the school, it is now the site of a "4 Star Luxury Hotel and Bistro Restaurant" see http://www.milsomhotels.com/kesgrave/ it is also wrong to say that Kesgrave Hall School became Shawe Manor School as it did not, something that would be clear if the web page followed the rules of this encyclopedia and had sources. Wlmmcf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmmcf (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete lack of sourcing and my own guidelines. While virtually all public secondary schools are notable, without evidence this academy is not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually unreservedly support the "all secondary schools are automatically notable" line, but this school was so tiny that's it's impossible to justify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confusingly, Kesgrave Hall was in use as a private boarding school as early as 1874. That source doesn't name the school, but it might very well have gone by the name "Kesgrave Hall School" at the time, for obvious reasons. I'm not clear that the various different managements, and even owners, involved over the centuries made these completely different enterprises; these establishments were all private boys' boarding schools in the same physical building, and quite probably under the same name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I should read properly before commenting; our article Kesgrave Hall says that in 1860 it was indeed called "Kesgrave Hall School". However the building had other uses in between, so actually what we have here is, I suppose, two (at least) establishments entitled Kesgrave Hall School, both private boys' boarding schools and both in the same building at different times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few free images of the school, including when it was open, by a former pupil, so I'm going to invite them to comment (with suitable caveats about not a vote etc) in case they can point out additional reliable sources or other information of relevance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, the earlier version of the school from the 1800s is probably notable, as all of the references i'm finding on the name is for the old one. Maybe this article should be rewritten to be about the non-contemporary one? Silver seren^C 15:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what are you finding? I didn't see much more about the 1800s school than the 1900s school; the former had some gazetteers and similar that mentioned its existence and sometimes the name of the headmaster, plus a couple of other refs that were just mentions of alumni; the latter had some alumni mentions, several independent reliable sources about a school employee convicted of crimes, and a few basic entries in publications like "Which School?" Mentions of people being "from Kesgrave Hall" or "of Kesgrave Hall" in the 1800s are mostly likely to relate to people that owned or lived in the building, or were from the surrounding area, not referring to the school. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The problem is likely to be that there are local books about the school, considering how long the history of the Hall is there's likely multiple books about it's entire history including the schools, but we don't have access to them here. Silver seren^C 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sourced content and there is more available to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is coatracking of a minor sexual assault to claim notability of a school. Its a not notable sexual assault and a not notable school. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources about the school that I found was of the sexual assault, which isn't notable as sexual assaults in schools are a regular occurence, other than that there isn't much notability other than the former school is located in a notable building. WP:V is a concern here and not having reliable sources other than the assault, that issue trumps WP:NHS, as NHS is a guideline and WP:V is policy. Merge to the building is another solution but please not the sexual assault content as that is a WP:BLP violation, as a very minor crime that is more harmful to the subject/subject involved and has no lasting notability. Secret ^account 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The sexual abuse reporting contains only passing references to the school, rather than in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too found only the sexual assault case and some extremely passing book references. I'm wondering where decent sources concerning the school actually are to be found. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some effort into looking at the available information in secondary sources (as noted above), and, despite it being rather thin, I think there is enough to establish notability for the topic. It's true that this was a small secondary school that was in operation for a relatively short period of time, but it should be noted that as a boarding school, its size is not exactly proportional to its importance. A boarding school is a complete environment 24x7 for its pupils, whereas an ordinary school is merely 6x5 - a huge difference. As has been noted by others elsewhere, an ordinary secondary school is not really very remarkable - but this school was clearly far from ordinary, and the mentions in secondary sources reflect that. I do appreciate that there are BLP concerns over the continued existence of this article (which is what prompted the nomination and some of the !votes, I think), and of course I would support removal of BLP-infringing material. However, it is emphatically not reasonable to describe the coverage in reliable secondary sources as "the sexual assault" and "a minor sexual assault" as some !voters above have done. The sexual assaults were repeated against the same victim, and also repeated against multiple victims, as is clear from the sources cited. Unpleasant as it may be, that is significant coverage when the school is so small and its existence so short. You can't have it both ways! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough sourced material to keep this article, or at least to be worth merging to some alternative target (article on the Hall itself?) TheGrappler (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Kesgrave Hall. The school that subsequently used the building redirects to the artifle on the hall, and I do not see why this one should be different. Deletion should be out of the question, but as one of a sequence of schools using the same premises, it fail to see why it needs an article of its own when predecessors and successors do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per standard practice for secondary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mark Burnett#Personal life where sourced info on her life and work has been merged. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Burnett

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

As an actress or producer she clearly fails WP:ENT, and it doesn't look like she passes WP:GNG either. St Anselm (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMDB says she is the ex-wife of Mark Burnett, but this does not appear in either article, presumably because of a lack of reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand. are you challenging her actual existence? She is the ex wife of Mark Burnett. What other proof is necessary?Sytable (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she is the ex-wife of Mark Burnett, it doesn't mean there should be an article about her. Notability is not inherited. St Anselm (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not mentioned in the article is that she produced a project in 2006 that won an Independent Spirit Award, a project that was itself the recipient of critical commentary and review in multiple secondary sources: DVD Talk DVD Verdtct Film Intuition eFilm Critic AMC's Filmcritic, etc. So while she might not merit inclusion through her verifiable former relationship to Mark Burnett, she might be seen to meet WP:FILMMAKER through her works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the link to Independent Spirit Awards is correct? It won an "Independent Spirit Award" at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but that doesn't seem to be the same thing. In any case, I'm note sure how much credit the producer gets for any of this. IMDb credits the award as going to Craig Serling and Nicole Lonner. In regards to the critical reviews, we probably have the same WP:NOTINHERITED issue. St Anselm (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If not THE awards, it is AN award, and reflective of the film receiving recognition. With respects, you appear to be misapplying the essaay WP:NOTINHERITED, as it is intended more to speak toward how relationships between perople do not neccessaily created a shared notability. My point here is that the notability guideline WP:FILMMAKER specifcially states circumstances where significant involvement in the creation of a notable project does indeed show notability for those with such significant involvement. IE: "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Being both a film's producer and its executive producer can be argued as being significant to a film's creation. That same guideline also instructs that notability can be found if "the person's work has won significant critical attention." The film being recipient of critical commentary and review in multiple secondary sources, and also gaining the recognition and awards for its actors, are circumstances that could be seen as meeting guideline's instruction. Of course, such involvement in the project and the critical commentary and review of the project must naturally be verifiable. So, and contrary to some interpretations of the essay WP:NOTINHERITED, guideline WP:FILMMAKER instructs when the notability of the work may indeed be noitability for those who had significant involvement with the creation of of the project, and an essay rarely overrules guideline or policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does come down to what "major role in co-creating" means. I was interpreting it to be the writer and the director rather than the producer. Hence, I was arguing that she fails WP:FILMMAKER, and that it was illegitimate to say "Burnett is notable because she produced an award-winning film." St Anselm (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... not something I said, so please do not attribute it to me as if it were a quote. Without opining a delete OR a keep, what I did write is "she might be seen to meet WP:FILMMAKER through her works." I also spoke toward notability being possible if "the person's work has won significant critical attention," and addressed possible misapplication of an essay. Certainly it is easier to argue that writers and directors fall under WP:FILMMAKER, but there have been more cases than not where a producer was found to also meet that notability criteria. As for the significance of a producer's contributions to a film, the article on Producers Guild of America better defines their conributions, as a film is more than just its writing and directing. It must BE produced in order to BE a film. The PGA Awards given by that organization show that producers can and do make significant and recognized contibutions to a film's creation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had said that - I was responding to a hypothetical argument, explaining why I thought WP:NOTINHERITED might also apply to the film. St Anselm (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Notability guideline specifically shows how that essay is inapplicable when considering WP:FILMMAKER. Better now to discuss whether a producer's contributions are considered significant to the production of a film or significant per recognition of those contributions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Merge per Schmidt below)' The article leaves out a lot (out of date) and so does her IMDB page, but even with additional research she does not appear to be notable. She has appeared in stage plays at the local playhouse and in a minor role in a notable TV program, and she has produced one indy movie which has almost no presence online and which does not mention her at its IMDB page. (The movie does not appear to qualify as notable, having won one minor award and gotten almost no coverage in Reliable Sources.) So on its face the article does not make the case for notability. By her own account she has had had a few other parts; interestingly, her own blurb does not even mention the movie that some here find so important. The social media website she created, "The Other Side", does not appear to be notable. Her autobiography The Road To Reality has not garnered any coverage that I could find. (It's hard to search because the title is not unique.) All in all she does not seem to qualify under WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:FILMMAKER are the same thing... and all dictate that notability might be found if "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or if "the person's work has won significant critical attention." While nice to expound on what she has done that has not garnered attention, having one's work receive attention [10][11][12][13][14] does not mean that the filmmaker must also have attention. That's not how WP:FILMMAKER works. And that same website from which you decide "she has had had a few other parts", shares that as a producer she was instrumental to the creation of Eco-Challenge and Survivor, and gives links to numerous additional articles about these other works... locking WP:FILMMAKER in a bit stronger. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep quoting the same policies and citing the same links; I heard you the first time. Your contention appears to be that she is notable because she was the producer for a "significant work" or that her work has received "significant critical attention". I disagree with your assessment of the film Jam as significant - and I note that of the (few) places that do talk about the film, none of them mentions her at all. The "Independent Spirit Award" given to the film by the Santa Fe Film Festival specifically gives the award to Craig Serling and Nicole Lonner, the screenwriters. The film's IMDB site does not mention her, except to credit "Burnett Entertainment" as one of the film's three production companies; that does not sound like her contribution to the film was major; it certainly doesn't make her "the Producer" as the article claims. The links you keep citing are not from independent reliable sources, such as newspapers; they are from various websites, of the type which review every film that comes down the pike, regardless of the "significance" or not of the film. (BTW they all pan the film.) Apparently not a single newspaper saw fit to review this film, so I find it hard to think of it as "significant". And that "same website" which I referred to and you quoted back at me - did you not notice that it is her own website, dianneburnett.com - not an independent source? Yes, it claims that she was "instrumental in the process" that led to Survivor and "a collaborator" in Eco-Challenge, but I could find no independent confirmation of that large claim - just self-referential sources. Even what looks like an independent source on the subject turns out to be quoting her claiming she played a role. There is no independent verification. So I decided that this person does not meet WP:FILMMAKER (for lack of significance of the one work she is known to have had some connection with, and lack of verification of the other things she claims). I then looked to see if she might qualify as notable under some other guideline, such as for her book or for general notability, but found that she does not. Hence my Delete !vote, which I reaffirm. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without having offered an !vote in either direction (yet), my "contention" is that guideline requires reasonable and common sense application, and essays should not be mis-applied or mis-interpreted. Inre: my comments originally addressed an improper application of an essay and then spoke toward application of WP:FILMMAKER toward a creator's work not demanding that an individual creator himself recieve personal coverage.

An award given to participants in an idie film, no matter who they were, shows that the film had received recognition through recognition of those participants. Further, a film's coverage need not itself be positive, as long as it is in an independent reliable source.

Pointing out IMDB's limitations is not a convincing argument, as IMDB is not accepted as being either reliable or all-encompassing, though it is a decent jumping-off point for further rsearch.

And, as you were the one who directed attention to the producer's website as if it showed she did little of worth, I felt it important for balance and for other's understanding to point out that it did quite the opposite through its offering of links to multiple independent secondary sources covering other projects with which she had significant influence. IE: The fact that she is founder and president of the entity Burnett Entertainment underscores, and does not detract from, the involvelment of she and her corporate entity in the creation of notable productions. Another plus on the side of WP:CREATIVE.

And with respects, your personal opinion about DVD Talk and DVD Verdict runs contrary to established consensus that they are independent and reliable secondary sources for independent films, no matter how they decided that a film might be were worth reviewing. Guideline does not demand that all indie films be reviewed by newspapers nor that such reviews be positive. But editors might appreciate, and even if dismissive of her work with the indie film Jam, the productions Eco-Challenge and Survivor have been the recipients of significant coverage as well. And yes, while it is her own site that offers the links to these articles, we judge the linked articles themselves, not where the links were archived. And before you go there, a claim that her entity's involvement was not significant to the creation of notable projects would be akin to claiming that Warner Bros. or MGM involvements were not significant to production of their own many notable projects simply beacuse other companies also had involvement in those productions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I certainly agree that Survivor and Eco-Challenge are notable and significant. If she actually was instrumental in creating them, she would be notable. But we have only her own say-so for that. Do any of those links provide any independent confirmation that she, or her production company, had anything at all to do with those shows? Survivor lists Mark Burnett as executive producer; she is not mentioned anywhere that I could find. Likewise, Eco-Challenge seems to be credited entirely to Mark Burnett as creator; I could find no mention of her involvement, except out of her own mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And yes, please do "find sources" for Burnett Entertainment. Look, for example, at the company's IMDB page, which lists only Jam, and says nothing about Survivor or Eco-Challenge. --MelanieN (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And before you tell me again that the creator of a notable work does not have to prove separate notability: I am not talking here about notability, but about verifiability. If the things she claims could be verified, she would be notable. However, I could find absolutely no independent verification that she played a major role (or any role) in the creation of those two TV programs. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INDB is not a reliable source. Its lacking information does not mean the information is not verifiable elsewhere. And certainly she seems to herself speak about her contributions, and even though the headlines are stolen by her more pressworthy ex-husnband, her contributions to Survivor and Eco-Chalenge can be verified away from Burnett herself: In the text of an article about Jam, Splash Magazine states "Burnett Entertainment ("Survivor") was behind the production", connecting Burnett Entertainment with Survivor. The government of the city of Malibu expands on that conection. In a biography included in an agenda report, created independently of Ms Burnett, and in preparation of the 2004 Malibu Marathon, the city wrote "...Dianne Burnett, was one of the creators of Eco-'Challenge, an adventure race produced in various countries and broadcast around the world." The govenment created bio also states "In 1999, Dianne assisted her husband Mark in creating the hit reality T.V. series Survivor." In the book Survivor: the ultimate game ISBN 1575001438, Mark Burnett himself acknowledges his then wife's part in the creation of Survivor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unconnected dots are now connected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who could believe for a minute that that biography, attached as an appendix to the Malibu council report, was "created independently of Ms. Burnett" - well, let's just say I know enough about how governments work to know that nobody in the Malibu government sat down and researched her life story to create an independent biography. City staff would routinely just attach the bios that are sent to them. And that is confirmed on page 2 of the report, where it says "Resumes or biography of the primary staff of Malibu Marathon LLC have been provided and are attached to this report." In other words, that is still just Ms. Burnett herself talking. But I'd love to see the actual quote from Mark Burnett's book, which could definitely settle this issue; any chance of that? Or at least, can you tell us how you know that his book says this, how you found it out? I'm not trying to be stubborn here, or to insist that she DIDN'T have a role in creating the programs. I'm just still looking for any independent confirmation that she did. And so far I haven't seen it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She or her production company may have worked on notable projects, but there's not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to make her notable. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pardon, Lagrange613... Let me pin this down. Do you feel the multiple available sources do not show notability for Eco-Challenge[15] and Survivor[16] or that multitude of sources do not reflect these works having "won significant critical attention"? Or is it that as founder and president of Burnett Entertainment, you do not feel she and her Burnett Entertainment "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" ? If all that is needed is to connect the production company with its productions, each episode lists Burnett Entertainment in its onscreen credits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you think I'm arguing that Survivor isn't notable? (No cheating by checking whether I've nominated Survivor (TV series) for deletion.) Without comment on whether Burnett Entertainment is notable, notability is not inherited. Working for a notable company does not make one notable. Let's see the significant coverage of Dianne Burnett, not her company, in independent, reliable sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CREATIVE, if Burnnet created or had a major role in creating something notable, then through verifiability that she did so, she can be determined as notable without personally having wide personal coverage. This applies to her having a significant role in the creation of notable films or television programs OR her founding a notable company. The essay WP:INHERITED is not intended to over-rule guideline. And while simply "working" for a notable company may be notable, being the founder and president of a notable company certainly can. Again, and per guideline, she need not personally meet the GNG if her creations otherwise do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A personal meeting, or not, of the GNG is not the deciding guideline. Her projects per WP:CREATIVE do not fail GNG. If a person is determined notable under CREATIVE, the person does NOT also have to have extensive personal coverage, just so long as the results of their creativity DO, and the involvement is verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary OK, here's where we stand. She claims to have been an important factor in the creation of two notable TV series, Survivor and Eco-Challenge. (That claim is not found in the article, but it is found on her webpage and has been raised here.) However, we have not been able to find any independent confirmation of that claim; all the sources we can find for it trace back directly to her. Now, it's entirely possible that she DID have such an influence; she was married to Mark Burnett and living with him at the time both series were created. However, it appears that any input from her was undocumented and uncredited. She herself seems to admit that her contributions to the series are not documented in the public record, when she describes herself (in talking about her autobiography) as "feeling profoundly betrayed as her contributions to the Mark Burnett 'empire' are marginalized to the point of zero recognition." With "zero recognition" of her alleged contributions to the shows, we can't consider them in evaluating her. (As they say in many professions, "if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen." Or as the Wikipedia essay says, WP:Verifiability, not truth.) And if we set aside those two series for lack of confirmation, her entire claim to notability is tied to the indy film Jam. Based on WP:FILMMAKER her notability depends on the answers to two questions: Is Jam "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? And was her contribution to the film significant enough that she can be described as its "creator"? (The actual criterion is "created, or played a major role in co-creating", the significant work.) That has been discussed at some length above. My answer to the first question was "no" and the second "maybe, but it doesn't matter if the film doesn't qualify." Other opinions may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been a terrific discussion. Thank you all. If her assertion is true that her ex was dismissive of her efforts in co-creating projects, then it must have been an acrimonious divorce... and a shame that she came out so poorly. At least she maintains the reins of Burnett Enterprises, and it is hoped that she steps out of his shadow for more than just a creating a social media website to promote the works of self-proclaimed psychics Sylvia Browne and Jonathan Edwards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Delete~~ and set a redirect to and encourage expansion of Dianne in the article about her ex at Mark Burnett#Personal life, where startingly, she has absolutely no mention other than her name as an ex-wife in the infobox. She IS the founder and president of the Burnett Enterprises with which Mark (and allegedly she) created projects. Leaving her in his article as only a name is a dis-service to readers who may wish to know more about Mark's formative years as a producer. I also suggest allowing recreation/undletion of the article at whatever future point when she has more coverage to verify her participation in the creation of the other aforementioned "notable productions". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good approach. Can we merge the image and links in there too? Stuartyeates (talk)

As the image is on the commons, as soon as we have content of her in the Mark article, a thumbnail would make sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And a sidenote: A properly sourced article for Jam (film) is currentlly under work and will soon find its home in mainspace. It's the only project at the moment for which we might all agree that Dianne may have had influence as the film's producer and executive producer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Schmidt, and a good solution to this situation. (I love it when long discussions wind up with consensus!) But the proper action is not "delete and redirect"; it is "merge and redirect". That keeps the information and links in the redirected page history, for anyone to use in merging to the Mark article - and it leaves the page itself (as a redirect) for possible restoration if she becomes more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified above per User:MelanieN. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources later demonstrate notability I would support the restoration of any content supported by those sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Content at the suggested redirect target Mark Burnett#Personal life has now been expanded, and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Wright

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

I have attempted to locate reliable secondary source coverage of this computer scientist, but have been unable to do so. I had difficulty with google scholar locating this individual, as there is a PM Wright that appears to be in a different field. There also is a Paul M. Wright who is a judge, but that appears to be a different person. It appears that this subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar is for academic sources, Paul is an Industry Author hence the book references and Industry Journals. Writing the first book on a growing subject meets notability criteria- and he is certainly an Author. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CQOQGwAACAAJ&dq=%22paul+m.+wright%22&hl=en&ei=FHluTp-mGMKg8QO0tPEk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA There is already a reference to same Paul M. Wright here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_forensics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 62.31.128.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to Database forensics without prejudice to merge Many people write good articles and books, but this topic does not satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Deleting the article would just hide the material from ordinary editors for no reason. Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The so-called field of "database forensics" claims to be associated with Digital forensics which has to do with what is done with computers that are seized from people that have been arrested, but "database forensics" has nothing to do with databases that won't be used again. The use of the word "forensics" has to do with reading the database to detect the traces of improper access, which seems to be more related to database mining and database security than forensics. Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is a guideline...an argument that there is a lack of notability is an argument that the topic should not have a stand-alone article. I.e., why should the material be deleted, are there alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD) here? Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is sufficiently notable in his discipline, the content could be merged into "database forensics", with due weight. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete -- This Author is notable as he has written the first book on this subject, which has subsequently expanded to include two other books in the same field (see Database Forensics Wiki entry Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_forensics , which Paul Authored http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Database_forensics&offset=20060602205635&action=history). I found this reliable Citation as per the request for more references - http://www.citeulike.org/user/dendi_rm/article/1567986. I note that there now 8 references, so that requirement appears to be satisfied as well. I think deletion would be unjustified as Notability and Citation requirements have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 62.31.128.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

62, the sources need to be about the person, not written by them. For example, a biography, written and published by a reliable source independent of the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@62 citeulike says, "Register and you can start organising your references online.", which, without actually doing more research, so I could be wrong, seems to mean that the site is self-published. Self-published web sites are, with some exceptions, not considered reliable, see WP:SPS on WP:V. I'm sorry, but your post is probably getting very little attention because it seems to be based on inexperience. Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete -- Another reliable citation from Professor Snodgrass of the University of Arizona Computer Science Department - a recognised expert in the subject of database forensics - see http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rts/sql3.html

Adding this citation to the ACM Citation from Jean-Pierre Kuilboer (Review #: CR137053 (1006-0557)) http://www.reviews.com/Review/review_reviewprint.cfm?review_id=137053 , we have the additional Citations requested. These Citations also both verify Authorship of the first book on Database Forensics, which establishes notability. The article passes both requested criteria so should be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Film Division. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan O'Neill (writer,producer)

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

A filmmaker. Unable to find any reliable, significant sources. However, he has a common name including one with a prominent journalist. The award is "In 2010 his Stickleback Production’s team won the inaugural Birmingham edition of the 2 Weeks 2 Make It music video competition". He has done three short films. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. According to other sites [17], he is a poet of published works. However, there is another poet in the U.S. by the same name [18]. I unable to find anything that makes him notable, but I might have missed something with all the common names. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Film Division for at least THAT entity has reasonable sourcability and O'Neill can be written of there. The commonness of his name renders the above Find sources template near useless. However, Sources are available with the correct search terms: Interview of O'Neill in Little White Lies (magazine) Confirmation of his work by British Film Concil Film Division Company founder Jazz Virk spoken of by BBC and Birmingham Mail and Birmingham City Council Let's put this information where it has its strongest support. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Film Division, per Schmidt. Great work, by the way, Schmidt, on coming up with what you did. Moogwrench (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - happy to go along with the above. I think I've found him by googling his name with "film director" at http://www.sticklebackproductions.co.uk/, http://www.filmcrewpro.com/uk/view.php?uid=242414, http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork//users/29793072. Jolly difficult but if that's him, he's notable enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Gurdwaras#India and delete history per consensus, ditto for Gurdwaras in Pakistan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdwaras in India

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

A laundry list of non-notable gurdwaras which is largely duplicated in List of Gurdwaras. Yunshui (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Gurdwaras in Pakistan for much the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Purge non-notable entries Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. A list exists.--Charles (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is nearly wholly redundant to List of Gurdwaras. The two sections on possibly-notable Gurdwaras in their own right could be proposed as linked articles, if there is any evidence to support them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant WP:POVFORK. Dzlife (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel T. LeFevre

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

The subject is the former editor of a non-notable newsletter and webmaster of some obscure websites. The only secondary sources are two brief mentions in SPLC articles. Google News and Proquest news archive have nothing on him. Based on the unsourced addition of his birthdate and his wife's name, I'd assume that the subject is editing the article and removed a PROD tag. Will Beback talk 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in reliable secondary sources.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the article's subject appearing in various publications, the available information about him does not indicate notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ugh, having just closed two AfDs as No Consensus I hate to make it three, but there are at least four different suggestions here along with a couple of Keep votes of the ITSNOTABLE type. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsberg's theorem

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

Topic not notable, largely OR AUN4 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and sourced humorous adage. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are a couple of reliable sources for it. That's sufficient for notability. Joja lozzo 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not sure how it looked to the nominator, but it looks notable and well-sourced now. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the proponents of retention please point to specific significant, reliable sources that establish notability of this theorem? The three sources in the article contain only trivial mentions of the theorem, as articulated below in my vote. Goodvac (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ginsberg's theorem fails WP:GNG because of the lack of significant, reliable sources:
- The Joy of Physics has only snippet view on Google Books, so I will quote the passage that mentions Ginbserg's theorem (snippet, snippet):
  The third law of thermodynamics was formulated by Walther Nemst.
  It is impossible to use any finite process to cool a body to absolute zero.
  Beat poet Allen Ginsberg paraphrased the three laws of thermodynamics as First law: "You can't win." Second law: "You can't break even." Third law: "You can't quit."
  Meanwhile, back to heat energy. There are several ways for heat energy to be transferred from one body to another. (my bolding)
  Ginsberg's theorem is tangential to the main discussion of the laws of thermodynamics. The author does not discuss the theorem at all; he merely quotes it.
- Murphy's Law merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and Freeman's Commentary, which is not a reliable source.
- Freeman's Commentary is an unreliable blog post by H. Freeman that copies this article verbatim. What makes H. Freeman a reliable source on Ginsberg's theorem?
- A Google News Archive search yields trivial mentions. The theorem is quoted with no discussion of it or its history.

Nothing in the article is verifiable except for the quote of the theorem and its originator. Thus, this article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful but doesn't support your conclusion in my view. A mention in Joy of Physics and Murphy's Law seems sufficient to establish notability. Joja lozzo 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I've already explained that the theorem is tangential to the main topic in Joy of Physics, and in Murphy's Law, the theorem is merely quoted—no detailed discussion in both. How is that significant coverage? How do those sources discuss the theorem in depth as required by WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail? Goodvac (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge~~ to Laws of Thermodynamics as a minor section, getting rid of the Freeman stuff. This isn't worth having an article solely devoted to it. Alternatively, merge to Alan Ginsberg. I wish people like him at least knew what a theorem is so that they wouldn't mis-use the word. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the additional sources This smacks of an attempt to bombard. Analyzing each source through the lens of GNG:
- Discovery, innovation, and risk: case studies in science and technology merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem as a statement of the laws of thermodynamics in "gambling parlance". This source adds no new information. It does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
- Applied reliability-centered maintenance states, "Entropy is a powerful concept and one of the three laws of thermodynamics, (paraphrased)" and proceeds to quote Ginsberg's theorem. Like Discovery, innovation, and risk: case studies in science and technology, this source adds no new information and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
- Up Tunket Road: The Education of a Modern Homesteader merely quotes the theorem and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem. In fact, it attributes the theorem to Steven Chu. That beggars comprehension.
- Trace quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and adds no new information.
- Boeing versus Airbus: The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business quotes "Jean Pierson, a former CEO of Airbus" reciting the theorem. This source adds no new information and does not even identify the quoted material as Ginsberg's theorem.
- The woolgatherer: a play in two acts is a work of fiction and cannot be used to establish notability.

Trace quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry, Boeing versus Airbus: The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business, and The woolgatherer: a play in two acts are used to source the sentence: "It is sometimes stated as a general adage without specific reference to the laws of thermodynamics." It is synthesis to find uses of Ginsberg's theorem and make a general statement derived from original research.

In sum, all the sources in the article constitute trivial coverage of Ginsberg's theorem, thus failing the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much here is there? The Freedman stuff is awful, shouldn't be there at all. (Even the editor who put it in doesn't seem to have a clue who Freedman is, or there would be a bit more exposition on that before launching into quoting him!) After that's gone, all that remains is a restatement of what Ginsberg said. If that should go anywhere on Wikimedia, it's the WikiQuote for Ginsberg - it's clearly not a sufficiently notable work of his, to require repeating on his WP biography. If we think that it's a notable example of "cultural impact/popular perception of the laws of thermodynamics" then perhaps it deserves a brief mention on that WP page. But a freestanding article that merely consists of a Ginsberg quote - no. So delete, I guess. TheGrappler (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laws of Thermodynamics - per Dingo1729 (nod to Thegrappler and Goodvac). Jojalozzo 16:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose a merge because the article about the Laws of Thermodynamics should not be bloated by the addition of a non-notable theorem discussed by few if any academics. Per WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." In addition, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research states, "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." A restatement of the theorem in the law of dynamics article, without any secondary analysis (since there isn't any), violates "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources." Goodvac (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first Google news archive result defines it at the start and uses it in its title. Ginsberg's Theorem Haunting Horsemen. Ocala Star-Banner - Jul 26, 1979. Its defined at [19] and gets mentioned in two other news sources which are hidden behind paywalls. Gets mentioned in dozens of books. Dream Focus 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself: "mentioned", meaning passing mentions.
  - "Ginsberg's Theorem Haunting Horsemen". The theorem is mentioned in a local newspaper in the local section about a non-notable local story. None of the information is usable in the article because the information can serve only as trivia.
  - "Calendar offers some of the important rules of life" quotes the theorem and states, "My theory on this is if you always expect the worse you will not be disappointed and your predictions will come through and other times you will be pleasantly surprised and you will be proved wrong." Information about the theorem is confined to the end of the article. The article's beginning discusses Murphy's Laws and other sayings such as Rune's Rule and Chrisholm's First Corollary. The author states her opinion about these theorems, but her opinion is unusable because it is not notable.
  - "The rules of the game: you can't win or quit". I have access to this pay-walled article. I will quote the relevant portions of the article:
    According to the dust jacket of "The Official Rules," Paul Dickson noticed some years ago that when he cut himself shaving, the size of the cut was directly proportional to the importance of the event he was shaving for. Intrigued Dickson set out in search of further such laws of modern life. This compendium The definitive annotated collection of laws principles and instructions for dealing with the real world is the result. Its 1500 entries are arranged alphabetically. On the first page for example are Abbott's Admonitions 1) If you have ask you're not entitled to know 2) ...
    ...
    There is no immunity from Herblock's Law. If it's good, they'll stop making it. No divinity can grant dispensation from Boston's Irreversible Law of Clutter. In any household junk accumulates to fill the space available for its storage. What it all adds up to is perhaps best stated in Ginsberg's Theorem: 1 You can't win 2 You can't break even 3 You can't even quit the game. But at least with Dickson at hand you know the official rules ARNOLD R ISAACS.
    This article is a review of Paul Dickson's The Official Rules. Ginsberg's Theorem is tangential to the main topic and is merely quoted with no discussion.
  - "There Aren't Very Many Things in Life As Bad As a Bad Limerick" (archive) merely quotes Ginsberg's theorem and adds no new information.

These sources from Google News Archive do not establish notability. And the passing mentions from Google Books I have already analyzed above. No authoritative individuals discuss the theorem. Goodvac (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative individuals? Since when is that a requirement? These aren't passive mentions, but people actually writing out the entire theorem. You can't get better coverage than that! You can't have a page of text talking about three sentences either, and they are self explanatory. Dream Focus 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely duplicating the theorem proves nothing. GNG requires significant, independent reliable sources. How are quotes of the theorem significant coverage? Detailed analysis of the theorem from reliable sources is significant coverage, but I see none of that here. Goodvac (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the quotation to Wikiquotes, wikiquote:Allen_Ginsberg. There really seems to be nothing to be said more than the ""theorem"" itself. I'm planning on redirecting this article there. Nothing else here seems worth saving. Any objections? Dingo1729 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only as a redirect to wikiquotes, wikiquote:Allen_Ginsberg. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Cutler

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

Originally, this page said that Mr. Cutler was a "Fox Radio host". It now makes clear that he is a host on "Fox Radio Northern Nevada", in other words, on one local station. He is therefore not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establishment notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is now gives no information which would meet notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it's only a keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Moon (band)

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

No secondary coverage by reliable source fail WP:BAND The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below) unless someone can provide a source for the unlikely statement that "Their pop sound has been featured in over 20 films and in such television series including Degrassi, Radio Free Roscoe, Queer as Folk, Falcon Beach, Party of Five, and Departures." Personally I find that hard to believe, given the rest of the article, but if it's true, I reckon that satisfies WP:BAND criteria 10 and possibly 12. In which case, I'll switch !vote to Keep. Yunshui (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "over 20 films" claim comes from the Album Notes to Paper Moon's "Broken Hearts Break Faster Each Day", http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/paperm2 so I suppose that might be a CopyVio, but

Degrassi is true, see http://www.tv.com/shows/degrassi-the-next-generation/danger-zone-1263110/

Search for Paper Moon in film is complicated as PM was the title of a film in 1973.

Falcon Beach is true, see http://falconbeach.ca/index.aspx?go=/the_music.aspx

EndearingPublishing say on their website that Paper Moon have done Queer as Folk (Showcase), Radio Free Rosco (sic), Party of Five DVD, Kyle XY (ABC Family). http://endearingpublishing.com/endearing_publishing/past_placements.html, so it seems the 'unlikely' claims are substantially true. Keep Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I see from a couple of searches that there's actually a fair amount of coverage in reliable independent sources, including Chart [20], Exclaim!, Vue Weekly, the Leader Post, and the Edmonton Journal. Keep even just on the basis of WP:BAND criterion #1. I'll start adding the sources over the next couple of days. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nice work Chiswick Chap and Paul Erik; changing !vote to Keep. Yunshui (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish topic notability, particularly the newspaper sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Specific newspaper sources in the article that appear to est. topic notability include:

Ash, Amanda (May 2, 2009). "Only During Thunderstorms: Paper Moon", Edmonton Journal, p. D3.
Matheson, Emmet (May 4, 2006). "Paper Moon endures big changes", Leader-Post, p. D2.
Block, Sheri (June 15, 2002). "One Thousand Reasons To Stay ... One Reason To Leave: Paper Moon", Leader-Post, p. A12.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And well done to the editors who demonstrated notability of the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good finds. Chart (magazine) is a reliable source, as are others that give coverage to this band. Dream Focus 10:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion education UK

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

I have no idea if this article is notable or not, it is a wall of text. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks very much like a copy of someone's thesis - at best it's original research, at worst it's a violation of copyright. I can't locate the copyvio online, so my guess is the former, but either way, it needs to be removed. Yunshui (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:OR as the publication of someone's thesis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find in this article no indication of how this information meets notability guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this is almost certainly WP:OR and as such has no place here. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the course of discussion on user talk pages, the author of this article asked for the article to be deleted, so I have deleted it under CSD G7. I hesitated to close this AfD, as I have participated in the discussion. However, it seems that closing it is just a formality, and will save trouble for others, so I am doing so. Feel free to reopen it if you think I was wrong to close it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsing light foundation

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

Non-notable as effectively unsourced. Sources are not linked, and I have run searches through both Google and the archives I have access to, none of which have turned up any results for "Pulsing Light Foundation" within these publications. Maybe I just suck at searching, but if anyone can verify these sources (thus ending this AfD), I'll give them a cookie. Yunshui (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now The organization was just started in May; I find no search traction either. Maybe when the papers or someone is moved to write about it... Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete this is a clear hoax, none of the refs are weblinked despite all being from 2011. It incorrectly spells Le Monde newspaper as "la Monde". LibStar (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It spells it as "La Monde", with a capital "L", so you are just as "guilty" of a typo as the article creator. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact I wouldn't object if someone speedily deleted it as giving no indication of significance (CSD A7). A previous incarnation of this article, under the slightly different title The Pulsing light foundation, was indeed deleted under that criterion. Scarcely any coverage anywhere, and what does exist is only blogspot, blogger, Wikipedia, and Twitter. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why I bothered setting up this page and try to help to add to wikipedia, to acuse it as a hoax due to a small type error is pathetic, if I knew that your sources had to be viewed on line then I would of waited until it gained more publicity through its good work, the wikipedia guidelines / rules says that a source / refernce doesn't have to be online, but these editors / administrators are saying the opposite, I have a job as a researcher and we do rely on the internet but only a little bit, we have to research the good old fashioned way, we never solely rely on the internet. One thing this experience has taught me is that I will never contribute or help (by adding info) to wikipedia again, it does say in the wikipedia guidelines not to be offended as nothing personal is meant, but the comments left by some are slightly personal, as someone who knows nothing on a certain subject is making comments and deleting your work, when you have worked hard to look into that subject, I never thought that because something is new then it cannot be added to wikipedia; the other problem when other administrators are looking for online sources and coming up with nothing it is because they are looking in the wrong place, what I mean by that is that the features in the media have not been directly about the pulsing light foundation, they have been real life stories about the people that the pulsing light foundation has helped, and in these features the foundation and its work have been mentioned, as a researcher I know that sometimes you need to look at things in a different light / area, you need to ask the right questions, anyway I believe that it would be wrong to delete this page for the above reasons that I have stated, you will find that more info will be added by other people / editors as the foundation becomes more widely known. Trdk4 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do sympathise with you. I can well imagine how frustrating it must feel to put some time and effort into writing an article, and find that it is under consideration for deletion. However, unfortunately the reasons you give for keeping the article are not in line with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If there are articles which are not directly about the "Pulsing light foundation" but mention it, then it is quite likely that they only give brief mention, rather than giving the substantial coverage which is needed in order to show that a subject is notable. Likewise, you say "more info will be added by other people / editors as the foundation becomes more widely known", but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and for a subject to warrant an article it I necessary that the subject is notable now, not that someone speculates that it will become notable at some time in the future. I would also like to reiterate that you should not take the comments personally. You are quite right in saying that sources do not have to be online. I think that "none of the refs are weblinked despite all being from 2011" probably did not mean "references are not valid unless they are on the internet", but more likely "major publications such as Le Monde and The Sun nowadays always put their content online, but there is no record online of any articles in those publications about the 'Pulsing Light Foundation', so that it seems improbable that such articles exist". I have searched extensively for any mention of this organisation, both in the sources cited in the article and elsewhere. For example, the article gives a citation to The Catholic Herald, but the Catholic Herald's archive contains no article at all containing the words "pulsing" and "light". In fact, there is only one article in the entire archive containing the word "pulsing", namely this one, which has nothing at all to do with the "Pulsing Light Foundation". Similar remarks apply to the other references in the article. Perhaps you can see why this sort of lack of verifiability (of not just one reference but eight of them) might lead someone to the conclusion that the references cited are not genuine, and perhaps also you can understand why that might lead someone to think the whole article is a hoax. I am willing to assume good faith, and believe that the article is not a hoax, but it looks very much indeed like an attempt to publicise or promote a rather obscure organisation without notability, and I can quite see why someone might think that the "references" are fictitious attempts to produce the appearance that sources exist when they don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm confused by the opening words of the article: "The Pulsing light foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in Europe". The "501(c)(3)" business seems to refer to some provision of United States law, and is total gobbledygook to anyone in Europe, so in what way is this an organization in Europe? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Le Monde, at least, hasn't covered the subject in the last year, so we can't rely on any of the other "sources" added by the same editor. I have been unable to find any other sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This search appears to indicate that this is not a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Hiroshi Ōshima. No point having a week of discussion about this. Obvious redirect. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohshima Hiroshi

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

Reason for removal: article is a duplicate of Hiroshi Ōshima with less content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haaninjo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 September 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Air Hack Day

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

Delete. Non-notable event, no reliable independent references, fails WP:EVENT, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by Rannpháirtí anaithnid Secret ^account 22:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houtan Delfi

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

Footballer who still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Player in question fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. In my opinion, the article should be elidgible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, especially given that the objection to speedy deletion appears to have been by accident (see here). Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG. I had a hell of a time trying to find a source so it satisfied BLP PROD...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence that this player is notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro de los Santos

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence provided that he has played at a fully professional level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence that this player is notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage meaning the subject fails WP:GNG, and no evidence that he has played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he do exist, but only played for Triestina in youth level.[21][22][23]

For Chile, is that a fully-professional level? Matthew_hk t c 12:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ok, the article never should have been created in the first place. I'll grant that. We don't want banned users circumventing their ban and forcing us to fix the same shoddy work that got them banned in the first place. However, it seems it is possible to fix this, and indeed significant progress has already been made in that department, and I believe I have a workaround for the other issue. I have revdeleted everything done by the banned user on the spirit of denying recognition to long-term abusers. Now that we don't have to worry about that, the keep argument makes the stronger case. Merging or moving the page to another title is a discussion that can and should be had on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1918–1920 incidents in Split

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

Original research, NPOV problems, pretty much impossible to rescue in its current form, created by ~~now-indefblocked~~ community-banned editor User:NewPangea4. Even the framing of the article topic is POV: the placename chosen is inherently POV, and the incidents involved should be in some other article, reported in context of the military occupation, rather than as stand-alone "incidents". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_tale_of_the_racist_sock_articles for more. -- The Anome (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nomination amended to emphasize that the creator of the article was community-banned at the time of the article's creation. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the lead author of the article in it.Wiki. Of course, in this project you can make all the decisions you want. I would simply point out that Split was not military occupied by Italians in 1918-1920. Split was occupied by an international force, commanded by a US admiral.--Presbite (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to be about something real, however it is named. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding it difficult to accept the nominator's allegations of OR and POV. It seems decently referenced and a valid subject for an article. Where is the OR, please? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the section 1918–1920 incidents at Spalato#Italians of Spalato carefully and see if you can answer that question for yourself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see, the nominator is taking a small section of the article which may fall under OR and instead of deleting that is using it as a "reason" to nominate the whole article for deletion. Glad that's cleared up! Sorry, but I think there's a bit of bias going on here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator is using WP:TNT reasoning here. It's not going to work, but the page does have a systematic pro-Italian, anti-Slavic slant. The OR there is just one facet of it. If you can't pick up on this, I'm not sure if you are well-informed enough for your !vote to be significant. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - May I suggest that you stop the snarky remarks! Thank you. The page may have some POV issues, but not as many as some here would have us believe. And I'm afraid I can't help feeling that several of the pro-deletion advocates here have a "systematic" anti-Italian, pro-Slavic stance and would not really be happy with any article about or reference to these incidents! For the record, I have neither and my opinion is based solely on my reading of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Look to my !vote; I am not one of these "pro-deletion advocates" of which you speak. I am merely pointing out that your original rationale (essentially "I don't see the POV/OR") is shaky. You asked to see the OR, and I pointed an example out to you. You have now retreated to the viewpoint of "well, there is some amount of OR and maybe there are a few POV issues". It's fine if you want to argue "keep" based on notability and such, but you'll have a much harder case if you take the standpoint of "This is a decent article with insubstantial POV/OR issues. It also has citations." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Will I? Who says? My opinion stands. It's up to the closer to consider the arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Uh, so where are these systematic anti-Italian editors? Please don't go against the spirit of WP:AGF. I for example noticed the egregious issues with User:Brunodam's writing and behavior, but at the same time I'm not having any particular issue with User:Wukappa's numerous edits and articles about Italian history of Rijeka/Fiume etc - because the latter user's contribution does not violate WP:NPOV, whereas the former has a clear habit of that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not "going against the spirit of AGF". I'm just having a problem spotting anything near the amount of POV and OR that some editors are claiming and certainly I'm having difficulty seeing how the article is unsalvageable, which makes me wonder whether there may be an agenda in play here. And may I remind you we are looking at the article, not the writers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, Necrothesp, we are "looking at the writer" since the writer is not allowed to write in the first place, as an indeffed (and soon-to-be-banned) Italian nationalist talking about "fanatical Slavic mobs" (among other things). Though it is interesting to see you attack users with accusations of "anti-Italianism", and then remind them to "look at the article". I can't imagine who those phantom figures might be - though I certainly hop it isn't me, since I am Italian by ancestry and have an Italian surname.
        Frankly, Necrothesp, I can't imagine anyone could read the article as it was ("fanatical Slavs") and honestly say they do not see any POV problems. I am inexorably driven to the conclusion that you did not really read the thing when you first posted, esp. since you've by now shifted your position from "I see no POV issues" to "maybe the article can be saved from those huge POV issues". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Strike that "soon-to-be" part - User:Brunodam was in fact banned in 2008. The relevant documentation has been updated/linked. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- The article has a lot of citations, but largely to Italian sources, and I do not know Italian. It lloks as if it has WP:RS, but I cannot say whether they are in fact such. Historically the Dalmatian Coast was a Venetian possession; hence Italian, rather than Croatian (i.e. Austrian). It concerns with events related to the break up of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the allocation of its territoy to neighbouring and successor states. If the use of the Italian place name is considered inappropriate, it would be easy to rename the article. I would suggest that if the article is similar to that in Italian WP and that article is not being considered for AFD, this one should also be kept. Possibly rename to 1918–1920 incidents at Split. I would also dissent from the OR tag. I do not feel qualified to comment on the POV tag, but if there is a POV issue, it should be resolved by editing not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep - definitely an article in need of serious work. The name is awkward (and not just calling it Spalato rather than Split - 'incidents' is too vague), and it has significant POV issues, little effort being given at representing anything but an Italian perspective (e.g. population numbers are only discussed for Italians), and the grammar is not up to snuff, and it also has structural issues, but it looks like the event is authentic and that there are sufficient reliable (if biased) references to demonstrate notability. The only question is whether it can serve as a useful structure from which a decent article can evolve or if it would be better starting from scratch. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article does seem to suffer from a lot of bias, and the whole thing is completely taken out context when we consider it's not even mentioned at this point in Split, Croatia#History - possibly through no fault of its own, but it's still odd and not the right way to deal with the topic. The title looks slanted because I googled incidenti u splitu 1918 (Croatian translation) and didn't find anything on the first page, so it's clearly not a big standalone topic in the majority opinion on Split, but a scholar search does bring up a Croatian scientific article that examines stuff around the Treaty of Rapallo (1920) more generally and devotes one big paragraph to the events on "Puglia", describing the unrest as demonstracije - demonstrations. Something I found fishy in our article is how it mentions Rapallo in an introductory section, rather in an aftermath section - that always rings a kind of an alarm bell for me, that the author had a pre-concieved story in their head and didn't lay it out properly for the uninitiated reader - it's more likely to be a story told from their point of view rather than an actual unbiased historical description. In any event - lacking History of Split, History of Dalmatia sounds like a decent merge target -- sans the most egregious editorializing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, now that I read some more history about User:Brunodam et al, I noticed Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia was also mentioned, and remembered that that one was fishy to me earlier, too (see what I wrote there in April). This is apparently just one in a long series of articles created basically to push this person's biased agenda (Italian irredentism). Now I'm all but convinced it should not be kept as is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the more I read, the more I became convinced that this is a user who has consistently abused the good faith shown towards him by myself and others in the community. The incidents article qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5 just like the numerous others. Merging the remaining factual and encyclopedic leftovers will be more than enough good faith effort in comparison with the disruptive circumstances of its creation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've tagged the article for rescue. However, I still think its material belongs elsewhere in an article with another title, such as, as suggested above, merged into History of Split or History of Dalmatia. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~Nicely~~ sourced historical article. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you taken a look at what these sources say? Or did you just go "Hey, it has citations. They must be automatically reliable!" ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix content issues with the normal editing process is what I'm saying. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you made the jump from complimenting this miserably POV article as "nicely sourced" to that, but.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the background of the article creator is a concern, it is not a reason for deletion. OR and NPOV problems seem to have been largely taken care of and are grounds for improvement, not deletion. The much, much longer Italian article linked by Presbite shows that numerous independent sources exist to support notability of this subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the NPOV problems have not been taken care of, I just had a look at the current revision and it includes e.g. "[...] the Italians of Split [...] were harassed by Croatian nationalists continuously, as has happened since the end of the XIX century in all Dalmatia" and references that with http://xoomer.virgilio.it/histria/storiaecultura/testiedocumenti/bombardieritesti/particolari_dalmazia.htm which appears to be a transcript of a document dated 1919 named "Martyrdom of Dalmatia", on what seems to be a random personal website. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources - this is an egregious policy violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The background of article creator is not just a concern - given that they were banned in 2008, WP:CSD#G5 should have applied - the only edits between Brunodam's two socks (User:NewPangea4 and 98.64.233.103 signed as himself) and the AfD were these insignificant cleanups. Had the nominator properly tagged it for speedy deletion instead, that would have been the end of it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep, but needs major work. This is certainly a topic worthy of an article, but it needs major purges of POV material (persistent pro-Italian, anti-Slavic slant) as well as just general cleanup. Those who have claimed that this is somehow a well-put-together article or that they "can't see" violations of NPOV either haven't read the article closely or are just completely illiterate when it comes to nationally-motivated disputes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, or merge into History of Dalmatia. Yes I certainly agree major work is necessary here, but that "major work" amounts to writing up an entire article, virtually from scratch. A lot of the sock's sources are known to be biased, almost all are in Italian ~~without page references~~, and by a community-banned sockpuppeteer notorious for falsely quoting sources in different languages - the whole thing needs to be redone. I know a bit about the subject, and I am frankly appalled at the depth of POV displayed here - the title itself is POV. As it looks now, I really can't let the article stand as it is (simply removing all the nationalist nonsense would make the text incoherent), but neither do I have the time to research and write an entire article. Further, while the sock did make it out like this was some "big deal" - the events here are an incredibly insignificant subject, obscure even for natives of the city. More than anything, not deleting this sock-article amounts to the banned user forcing Wikipdians to write-up articles that he wants to see written, and that he "judges" should stand separately. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the seventeen references given, all but three have page numbers. Obviously it's hard to check the accuracy of these references, but please don't make incorrect claims to back up your case. It really doesn't help. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes obviously it doesn't help, Necrothesp, it was a mistake (comment stricken). The rest of the problems still stand. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename the page in 1918–1920 incidents at Split In 1918 the city has already changed his official name from "Spalato" to "Split". --Grifter72 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would suggest that we need an article on the Adriatic Question to deal with former Austro-Hungarian territories disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia immediately post-World War I. The articles on d'Annunzio's little adventure and the Free State of Fiume would be subarticles; this article could either be merged or kept as a subarticle. I'm mostly concerned that if the article is deleted nobody will start from scratch, since if somebody will, why not just rewrite the current one? Srnec (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your !vote is more of a merge than a keep then :) On a similar note, I recently merged Impresa di Fiume into the aforementioned article about d'Annunzio's upheaval. The question is whether the entire slanted story warrants a separate article when the relevant sections of History of Dalmatia don't actually exceed size limits. In the case of short-lived states, the clear justification for separate articles is that their nature makes them distinct from general historical articles, but these topics are general, and splitting them from the general history as we do now looks as if we're creating two parallel threads of history articles, which wouldn't make sense at all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Srnec's argument: mostly concerned that if the article is deleted nobody will start from scratch – well, yes, quite likely nobody will. But the argument works the other way round. If we keep these kinds of articles, we are essentially blackmailing the few good-faith editors who have the knowledge and interest to deal with this thing into investing their work in an article they don't actually want. We're forcing them to either let a painfully unacceptable article sit unchanged, or invest a huge amount of work they quite likely would prefer investing elsewhere. In other words, we are empowering the banned user to define everybody else's work agenda. We shouldn't be doing that. Banned means banned, and if no good-faith user wants to work on this topic on their own accord, neither Brunodam nor anybody else should have the power to make them do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am a good-faith editor and I do not feel blackmailed by myself. I was unaware of the status of the user who created the article and I don't really care much. If the article's content were a hoax, completely false, or if the article was about a non-notable topic, then I would vote delete, but since the article as it is is neither a hoax, nor completely or even mostly false after recent edits and the topic is notable, I see no reason to delete. It's better to work on it and recognise that even a bad-faith user can contribute something the rest of the community can redeem. Maybe it should have been speedied, but it wasn't. Now we're here and I don't think the status of the banned user is relevant any longer. Let the community (and the closing admin) decide. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nonsense title is the least of the problems Grifter. Who's going to fix this thing? Or I should say write anew this thing since its entire concept and structure is POV. Who's going to properly research this obscure event and go around cleaning-up the sock's messes? This article is by no means the first, or only current such POV-pushing attempt. And why should the banned guy/his socks be allowed to place "work orders" here on enWiki?
Folks, if the consensus is that this article needs plenty of work, then I suggest someone volunteers to do it if he or she thinks the article needs to be kept - because we all know this obscure irrelevant nonsense isn't about to attract a host of informed, spontaneous editors repairing POV anytime soon. The bottom line is that this is a sock article, and that keeping it essentially allows for community-banned users to post on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DIREKTOR. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone having doubts whether these sort of sock articles should go or not, ought to have a look at the current Mass-scale ban evasion thread on WP:ANI. This is just the latest in a a series of about a dozen articles (and counting) this sockpuppeteer has created to game the system. This article should in fact be speedily deleted per general criteria G5. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Dalmatia#Twentieth century and Dalmatia#20th century, after reducing this material to remove POV and smaller incidents. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also an option I could support (for the record) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't grant this sockpuppeter the satisfaction of having his garbage preserved, even if it's just in the page history. Most of the material is objectively unuseable. If anybody in the future wishes to write something legitimate about these events afresh, be it as a new standalone article or as part of some other article, they can do so, but they won't be in need of this low-quality material in doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments (voted Keep) above. Merging into a parent article should not be an option. It may well need work, but that is a reason for keeping (but with tags) not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm telling you man: if you want to labour at the sock's behest, or know someone who will, then we might talk. I'm not kidding, if this thing is kept the first thing I'm going to do is blank all sock text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is a legitimate result of a WP:AFD discussion, and supporting a merge of relevant parts of a broken article into a more general article is not implicitly the same as supporting keeping a broken article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There might be an article to be written about this, but given the article's content and history, the solution is to WP:BLOWITUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced historical fact. Captain Gulli was awared in 1920 with the Gold Medal of Military Valor. The facts are still remembered (Francesco Perfetti is a renowed acedemic in Italy), even in Croatia.--Presbite (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the American press, a more complete view, a real feuilleton, some minor facts, and so on....--Presbite (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can you then rewrite the article to properly demonstrate its standalone notability, rather than just assert it (while implicitly supporting the banned user)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article, after the last modify of DIREKTOR, is now aseptic. It doesn't need to be rewrited. G5 is not applicable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1918%E2%80%931920_incidents_in_Split&action=history --Grifter72 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's aseptic yet - the title is still a fair bit incoherent with the content. It talks about incidents in Rijeka, Zadar, Trogir, Kaštela, in addition to Split and with similar prominence to the latter, but only Split is in the title, which looks biased. User:Srnec's suggestion to explain the events in wider context of the "Adriatic Question" looks much more coherent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that this article reminds me of the infamous Zadar Kristallnacht article. That was also an article created by propagandists who picked the title of a single riot and made a really shoddy article that was also entirely out of context. That one was also grossly unreferenced. Once the context was added, it became apparent that it didn't make much sense to explain the riot on its own. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this referenced article? A simple translation could be OK?--Presbite (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you write a decent article, that's fine. Mind, I still don't see the title as a preferable description of the context, because from your own bibliography, and even disregarding the titles from Slavic-sounding authors, we see that the Italian authors by and large don't just talk of the city of Split but of Dalmatia and the World Wars context in general. Do consider a more general frame, because on the English Wikipedia we probably don't have the same amount of context that the Italian Wikipedia probably does. As has been pointed out several times now :) the article History of Dalmatia basically has no mention of this, and it can easily be a set of sections there, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article history of Dalmatia we can't see a huge amounts of Dalmatian events/people, like the treaty of Vis, the Diet of Dalmatia, Antonio Bajamonti, and so on. The title is sourced in Italian ("Incidenti di Spalato") and English ("Riots in Spalato"). Have a look to my links, please!--Presbite (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, so let's concentrate on fixing the main historical timeline rather than working off specific incidents that are easily taken out of context? Also, book search for "Incidenti di Spalato" gives 18 results, zero results for "Riots in Spalato". I still fail to see the downside in integrating this content into more established generally titled articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could read my links:

Enough?--Presbite (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... not even close actually :). You are aware thats just one newspaper, one source? Maybe we should post 25 links to separate pages of one publication and pretend its an indicator of notability? In reality Joy found more than you did with the Books search and its measly result (18 hits), and its still woefully unimpressive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your sarcasm. Sorry.--Presbite (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Although I have no idea what you're talking about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the riots/incidents/disorders/disturbances at Split. No idea? I'm very, very sorry.--Presbite (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rise, Presibite: you are forgiven. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amon.--Presbite (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presbite, the good. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample news coverage exist. AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with parts of the article, then discuss it on the talk page, and work out an action solution, don't just try to destroy something with the hopes that someone will come along and rewrite the entire thing from scratch and it'll be to your liking. Dream Focus 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "liking" involved here - the fact is that the entire text of the article was written by a user who has been permanently banned by the community three years ago. Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. This is not a typical AfD where only content and the topic is examined - you also have to elaborate a common-sense reason to ignore this policy. (Granted, further edits make this point moot, but I still had to counter this kind of "why are you destroying stuff" argument.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G5 applies here and the speedy template should have been applied from the start. A superficial look at the history seems to suggest otherwise, but in actual fact 99% of the edits following the last modification by Brunodam's IP (of 03:35, 22 April 2011) do NOT constitute contributions by other users but are for the most part the removal of offensive and insulting text. Should these edits, in actuality mere "damage-control" due to the offensive nature of the text, be interpreted as the expansion of the article by non-socks? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - raze and rebuild. When an article is built upon such suspect foundations a sentence-by-sentence examination (particularly one based on sources not in the language of the wiki variant it appears on) is not practical. And that's completely setting aside the very valid issue that the article is made by a long-term sock who shouldn't be allowed to make articles of any sort until his block is removed. Suggest it be deleted, and a request for a from-scratch version be added to WP:ITALY and to the appropriate "Requested articles" list; the concept is quite valid and interesting, but on both a policy and practical level this text should not be preserved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "the article is made by a long-term sock who shouldn't be allowed to make articles of any sort until his block is removed." Which isn't going to happen; User:Brunodam, the sockmaster of the puppet who created the article, is banned. (You could argue twice, if the aborted voting in the recent AN/I subject, that was unanimous until it was realised he was already banned, is counted...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Doctor Who serials. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who (2005) episodes

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

I feel bad because a lot of work has clearly gone into this, but it's simply redundant to List of Doctor Who serials. U-Mos (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials which, as the nom points out, is the proper place for this material. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials per nom. Redundant page Etron81 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant fork. The tables are transcluded from the seperate series pages, and a redirect serves no purpose. — Edokter (talk) — 14:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't a redirect to the 9th Doctor section help those who are looking for a list of episodes from the new series? That way we won't have redundant lists and those who search new series episodes can find it easily. I'm not too bother one way or the other, though... Etron81 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibley but this I don't think was this users intension. Globalwheels (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not redundant as it serves as a guide to episodes of the new doctor who series, as of 2005. The List of Doctor Who Serials page serves a completely different purpose, it merely lists INFORMATION about each series which each of the eleven doctors, old AND new, rather than focussing on the 2005 reboot and being merely a list of episodes including a synopsis for each episode, where the list of serials does not list any of this information. It serves a much different purpose in that it also has cut out all the irrelevant information found on the serials page, because if you were looking for a list of episodes page for the NEW series you wouldn't want to be inundated with information about the past 50 years of doctor who, you would only want to see the stuff from 2005 and also not be inundated with information about each individual doctor, this is why the list of doctor who (2005) episodes page is NOT redundant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrabyn (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However this is redundant since there is individual series articles. Globalwheels (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO it is still relevant, because people dont want to have to go and look at EVERY SINGLE series page. They don't have to do it for any other show, why should they have to do it for this one? And the individual series pages have more information than solely the episode lists. Thus there IS a CLEAR purpose for this page. ╟─Alexbrabyn (talk • contribs)

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials which is the list of episodes. Futher information is given in the individual series articles (e.g. Doctor Who (series 4)) meaning there is no need for further articles combining both. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this type of page has been implemented for every other television show out there, thus there is no reason why there shouldn't be one for the NEW doctor who series. As the NEW doctor who series IS a different series to the "Classic" Doctor Who, thus is deserves a SEPARATE page to itself. I suggest you fully understand the information about this show and its running and following before you start making assumptions about how the pages should work for a show you have clearly had very little positive contribution to. Thank you.╟─Alexbrabyn (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As a 25+ year Doctor Who fan, I have a good understanding of the show and its running. Moreover, as a 4+ year Wikipedia editor, I have a good understanding of our policies and guidelines. I appreciate that you've put a lot of hard work into the article and I take no pleasure in supporting its deletion - when I first joined Wikipedia, I myself put a lot of time into three articles on DVD releases which were promptly deleted via AFD discussion so I know how it feels (but with the benefit of experience and hindsight I can see that the deletion was completely correct). But there are several Wikiprojects (WP:DOCTORWHO, WP:SCIFI, WP:TELEVISION) whose scope this article falls within and who would have been more than happy to offer their advice regarding this article's creation before you invested so much effort into it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: redundant to the series articles and overall list. This show is a continuation of the 1963 series in all respects; we don't have List of Futurama (2010) episodes or List of Family Guy (2004) episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However there is no other List of Doctor Who episodes page, the "List of Doctor Who Serials" page is a list of serials, not a list of episodes. Futurama continued on in series numbers, Doctor who whilst yes, is a continuation of the 1963 series went from Seasons, to zeroing series, thus not a continuation in all respects, so a List of episodes page is required. Alexbrabyn (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the episode that aired last night was the last of season 2, if you go by the production team. The BBC are very lax on what you refer to Series 1/5/31 to (indeed, Steven Moffat gave the Eleventh Doctor's first series the name "fnarg" when joking about this disagreement). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials per nom. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. The latter article's "Contents" box at the top provides quick links to each Doctor's period, thus entirely redundant and no need of the massive duplication of material. Barsoomian (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it was series 6 that just finished. The dvd's and blurays from 2005 onwards are labelled from series 1-6. 114.78.14.29 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of Doctor Who serials as a better location to cover it. Dzlife (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. COI and COATRACK issues can be solved by editting. We don't delete notable topics simply because they have a point of view. This article doesn't have a snowballs chance of being deleted. v/r - T P 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weight management

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

See WP:NOT -- we're not an advice column. The entire article reeks of WP:COI and seems to be a WP:COATRACK. Also has strong POV opinions like " Weight management does not include FAD diets that promote quick, temporary weight loss" or "is a long-term approach to a healthy lifestyle". There are a lot of weight management companies that do use fads. This article supposedly has a lot of references, but combines them in a manner that is strongly reminiscent of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not sure this article can be saved. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is obviously "real", at least in the sense that reliable sources use the term --- even if, in my opinion, all of this is mostly a testament to US body-image neurosis. It fetches almost 40,000 Scholar hits. (!!!) The officious tone and POV of the article is probably just the officious tone and POV of the sources rubbing off; we are, after all, dealing with people who want to regulate what you eat and drink for failing to conform to their ideals. The how-to issues and POV tone can all be fixed by editing, even if that leaves only a stub here, but an article on the subject is probably necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article really exist when we have management of obesity? Notice how much more medical and scientific that second article is. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirely different issue, of course. As noted, this title brings forth 39,200 Scholar hits; "management of obesity" 12,500, and "obesity management" under 6,000. I'd defer to 'experts' on whether "weight management" and "management of obesity" are separate concepts that could support separate articles, even if the world would be a happier place if nobody used either phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the option of merging the two related articles. Weight management is not exactly the same thing as management of obesity, since healthy-weight and under-weight people also need to manage their weight. Also, managing obesity could involve more than efforts to change the person's weight, e.g., interventions to keep the obese person mobile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to management of obesity, or perhaps reverse merge it. Looking at references to "weight management" shows that, in practice, it applies mainly to obesity; there is very little discussion of dealing with being underweight (excepting perhaps eating disorders, which are coupled with obesity anyway). Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article seems to need additional references that discuss the topic "weight management" specifically, rather than using the term in the context of other information. Merging data to the management of obesity article wouldn't be appropriate, because weight management and management of obesity are entirely different concepts. For example, people that manage their weight are not necessarily obese. There are many book references in the article that appear to verify content in the article, although I haven't gone to the library at this point to research all of them, because I just read the article. Perhaps more internet-available references from reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail would serve to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a few books to a new further reading section in the article:
Brownell, Kelly (January 2004.) "The Learn Program for Weight Management." 10th edition. Amer Health Pub Company. ISBN 1878513419
Dalton, Sharron (1997.) "Overweight and weight management: the health professional's guide." Aspen Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0834206366
Laliberte, Michele; Taylor, Valerie; McCabe, Randi E. (2009.) "Cognitive Behavioral Workbook for Weight Management: A Step-by-Step Program." New Harbinger Publications, Inc. ISBN 1572246251

These appear to be directly about the topic of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List referenced ways found in many sources for managing your weight. This isn't just for people suffering from obesity, so its a separate notable topic than the other one. Many women are unfortunately obsessed with managing their weight, without being anywhere near obese. Dream Focus 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of high-quality sources are available through Google Scholar, so it looks like this article has a lot of potential. This study looks interesting, as does this one. Note that Weight Management is sometimes discussed in terms of underweight people as well:[24]. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These pages aren't for article cleanup, and the nom's concerns are just those.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simple sensible suggestions - some slightly debateable, but referenced well. Searchertoo (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saikumar Appoorwa

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

Subject isn't notable - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Dkchana (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. References don't appear to support article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable by Wikipedia criteria. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked for athletic records in India and been unable to find them even for top players. This is not a professional athlete, but a good amateur. The claims made in the article are unsourced, because of my own experience I feel that they are also unsourceable in official records, and it is not clear to me that the events in which this athlete competed are themselves notable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Boleto

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see how this person is notable by our standards--sure, he has a verifiable job, but there is no indication or proof of passing our notability guidelines; for instance, there is nothing that's not published by his employer. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I found this item in a local paper and that's the juiciest coverage I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a journalist, he falls under WP:CREATIVE. He doesn't pass any of the criteria there. Yunshui (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Actually, why hasn't this just been speedied per WP:G4? Yunshui (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Stand-Ups list

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

Blatant violation of WP:FU#Text_2, being a "A complete recreation of "Top 100" where the list has been selected in a creative manner". See also Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51#Attorney_feedback. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's either essentially a copyvio or someone's synthesis; either way it doesn't belong here. Mangoe (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: By logical extension of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments, where a dozen similar articles were deleted.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emotionally focused therapy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Therapy

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

As a virtually orphaned and dead end article with no references, I fail to see what value this article adds to Wikipedia. As it stands it is simply a magnet for spammers to add their website. It would be better deleted or merged into another article. Biker Biker (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an article on Emotionally focused therapy and that may be a venue for some/all of this article's content. I am unsure if the two things are distinct. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Emotional Therapy was a new article 20110327, the contents of which were moved over from Psychotherapy, with the rationale that, " not major enough to warrent (sic) a section here. Move to own article." The edit summary is commendable in that it offers insight into the thought process, and it seems to me that the process was "in the wrong direction." In fact, the psychotherapy article would seem to be the correct place for this content (favor), or merge to Emotionally focused therapy (reasonable option). I think a redirect of the term Emotional Therapy to Emotionally focused therapy (that is what I have heard it called, but a redirect one way or the other would be OK) is also warranted, as well as Deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. I would support that. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CFORK All Psychotherapy is emotional therapy. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per FeatherPluma, excellent summary of a poor unsourced article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Joseph J. Caceres

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

As an undergraduate student with his name on one paper, this person appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plainly not (yet) notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete An undergrad with one paper? Be serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another clear example of a single purpose account also named User:Alan J Caceres and why the clearly failed policy of allowing users to create articles on their first edit needs to change. W Nowicki (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per below. Hut 8.5 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Crews

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

Withdrawn You'd think the Pushcart Prize would be easy to verify, apparently it's not through on-line sources, nor does Google Books evidence her work was anthologized as a result (the "prize", to an author is being one of many works selected to be anthologized)--maybe it's too soon for that to be out? No other coverage about the author from reliable sources. Amazon's coverage of the winning year doesn't include "look inside the book".

I'm not convinced that the Pushcart Prize does or doesn't have inherent notability if it can be verified, that's kinda a question for y'all, I'm sure there's a precedent. But it certainly needs verification, and any assistance in that would be gratefully appreciated. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashlee Adams Crews is usually known as Ashlee Adams rather than as Ashlee Crews (assuming her last name really is Crews at all). If you try searching for Ashlee Adams you get plenty of hits [25] [26] [27]. Hut 8.5 10:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the page to Ashlee Adams to reflect this. Hut 8.5 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I knew there had to be something I was missing. Thanks. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Rules "Le Grand Tournoi" 2006

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/K-1 Rules "Le Grand Tournoi" 2006

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of kickboxing results that fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. those voting keep all must show evidence of third party coverage for each event. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all More routine sports coverage. The articles lack independent sources and are about events that lack historical significance. Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Except for the MAX tournament, all of these articles are on events that aren't even part of any tournament (much less a finals). The articles lack independent sources and give no reason why the events are notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Timeline of post-World War II American conservatism. (If you can come up with a better move target, by all means bring it up on the talk page.) As the article stands, there is a pretty clear consensus to delete, as conservatism is poorly defined on a timescale encompassing all of modern history. However, restricting its scope to only the time period in which the modern definition of "conservatism" applies is sufficient to address many of "delete" !voters' concerns. If anyone feels that the new article should still be deleted, feel free to renominate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of conservatism

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

Original research and content fork of Conservatism. Since conservatism is an ambiguous concept, any article that tries to provide a timeline will be inherently original research. We must determine what events should be included and what weight should be given to them. There is no timeline provided as a source and there are disagreements among historians. TFD (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article cannot be anything but synthesis and original research as there is no cited timeline used as basis. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About 90% of the article is unsourced, but that's only the beginning. The major problem is that many events in this list aren't clearly related to conservatism. It's original research to include those events in this list. For example: 1987 June 12: In Berlin, President Ronald Reagan challenges Mikhail Gorbachev to Tear down this wall! How is this event related to conservatism? Here what Reagan said in that speech: ....General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate... --В и к и T 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 100% of the entries in the article are wikilinked. Ample sources for these entries can be found at the target articles. Just a matter of incorporating the sources from the target. Regarding entries that may or may not be WP:OR: once the editors at the talk page refine the inclusion criteria OR problems will subside.– Lionel ^(talk) 14:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three reliable sources have just been added which discuss the topic conservatism and provide detailed timelines of conservatism. See (1) Allitt, (2) Carlisle and (3) Story in Further Reading. Conservatism is a common topic of study and many political science textbooks at the university level contain timelines specific to conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list now contains mutiple sources which cover the topic substantively. The list now passes WP:LISTN. While not conceding that this topic is "ambiguous," we have no policy which suggests or requires the deletion of "ambiguous" topics. However if a topic is ambiguous, WP:DUE requires that it "represents all significant viewpoints." This bolsters the argument that articles should not be deleted merely because they are ambiguous. Regarding "determining what events" to include that is easily handled by examining reliable sources. In any event discussions about entries are best left to the editors at the talk page: AfD is not the proper venue to determine what entries should or should not be in a list.
This timeline is a powerful compliment to Conservatism and has great encyclopedic value. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see these sources. I checked each one listed in the references, but perhaps I missed them. To pass WP:LISTN, we need a source which discusses the topic "as a group or set". None of the 7 listed in the references do. What source fills that criteria? — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Bibliography. These histories cover conservatism in detail and also contain timelines. As the article is developed inline citations will be added. Right now they satisfy WP:N. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable as a topic. Appears to be sourced. Appears to be nicely replete with bluelinks. The guideline states: A Timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. which appears to be met. OR clearly does not apply as the readers are able to use the wikilinks for each topic, and no claims are made about the list other than that each item fits into the timeline. Collect (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, which states "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set". It seems clear that the article was compiled via original research, perhaps by searching google for "important conservative events" and dumping everything that came up. While these individual problems could be addressed via normal editing (such as by removing poorly sourced entries), we have no RS stating these items are interconnected, or that, indeed, there even exists such a notable timeline. There is also no clear inclusion criteria for the article. What constitutes an "important event in conservative history"? Without sources telling us, the answer to that question is inherently OR. Consequently, the article should be deleted unless (or until) sources can be provided which detail the timeline themselves, without the subjective interpretation and synthesis of our editors. — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Um - by your standard absolutely no "timeline" for any topic would be allowed <g>. The fact is that "conservatism" per se is a "notable topic" which has a history over a number of years -- are you seriously asking that reliable sources be given to establish that the history of a topic covers a range of years? I would hope not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how the lineline could handle something like the example I provided below. TFD (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's fine to have a timeline, together with main article. Biophys (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Jess, timelines need to be reserved for events that are more interconnected like a Timeline of the Civil War or Timeline of the France Revolution. This just seems to be a dump for "important conservative events". LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! The article is a dump for search results, not interrelated events. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleanup, as most AfDs do, but the subject is notable and it passes WP:LISTN. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a clear case of original research. there are no sources saying these are noteworthy or key events in the history off conservatism, which is already a term with so many different meanings in different cultures, countries and eras as to be unsuitably vague for building a clear-cut timeline. The items are arbitrary, with no objective reason for their inclusion. A typical case it the entry for the appoint of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is he the only conservative judge worthy of note since 1500, anywhere in the world? Obviously not. Was Michael Steele a notable conservative in the scheme of things? Not at all: he was an unpopular head of the U.S. Republican Party for a couple of years. I think that it is impossible to write an article at this title which will follow all three core content polices: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, and so it should be deleted. Will Beback talk 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example The American Revolution is just one of many examples of where ambiguity makes it impossible to write a neutral timeline. Lionelt's sources for example provide conflicting timelines. Note that the terms liberal and conservative did not come into general usage until the 1830s and in the U.S. until after 1945. Do we describe the revolution as a conflict between:
- a liberal empire and liberal colonists
- a conservative empire and conservative colonists
- a conservative empire and both conservative and liberal colonists
- a liberal empire and conservative colonists
- a liberal empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
- a liberal-conservative empire and liberal colonists
- a liberal-conservative empire and conservative colonists
- a liberal-conservative empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
- TFD (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ greatly restrict scope and rename: Without any secondary sources on which to base the timeline, it's difficult to gauge what should and should not be included. Does anything that has been described as conservative merit inclusion? Is this only a political timeline, or does it include economic and religious conservatism. How does environmental conservatism fit into the timeline? How about energy conservation? The real concern is that this article would just become a WP:COATRACK of topics included on the basis of whim as opposed to sourcing. Given these potential pitfalls related to OR, I suggest the article content be greatly restricted to focus on a specific era and brand of conservatism. Possible examples: Timeline of 20th century American political conservatism, Timeline of American Cold War political conservatism. aprock (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that more than anything, the sources should generally be restricted to published timelines from secondary sources. Much of the OR/SYNTH/COATRACK issues can be resolved in this manner. This means excluding tables of contents, and editor constructed timelines based on their own reading of one or another book. If there are no such timelines in any of the sources, I suggest redirecting the article to Conservatism until some are found. aprock (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Timeline of American conservatism". It's clear that the timeline is heavily focused on post-WWII American conservatism, so why not just own it? It's hopeless to write a "Timeline of conservatism", because, as others have pointed out, the scope of the topic is too vague and impossible to define. It's largely impossible to agree on what "conservatism" means across 500 years and numerous cultures.
Right now, the article already seems to be focused mostly on presenting a favorable view of American conservatism (for instance, conservative opposition to the civil-rights movement seems like a rather notable omission). The one-sidedness is a function of the editorial pool and can be fixed with more diverse participation, but the problem of focus remains. Again, I would just move this to Timeline of American conservatism, which is a much more focused and clearly delineated topic, and one where a timeline would actually be encyclopedically valuable. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion sounds good with the caveat that if it's going to be about "post-WWII American conservatism", the title should reflect that, possibly Timeline of post-WWII American conservatism. Given the constantly shifting nature of the meaning of "conservative", it might be better to delineate both endpoints as well as restrict the topic somewhat: Timeline of 20th century American political conservatism. aprock (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Lionelt presented Story and Bruce's Rise of Conservatism in America, 1945-2000 as a source that presents a timeline. TFD (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly limit scope and rename per aprock. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1945 to 2000 in the USA seems about right. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable enough for its own page, even with a lack of sources. Mostly appears to be an attempt to get rid of an article by editors that may disagree with conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes no sense - if a topic has no sources then it's non-notable and impossible to write about. Also, please remember to assume good faith. Will Beback talk 05:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [28] is a review of a book specifically dealing with a timeline consept for American conservatism at least (multiple notable reviews on that book, by the way). There appear to be boks on the topic such as [29] and so on. Additionally, the only real WP requirement here is that Conservatism be notable - anything which has a history behind it has a "timeline" possible for it - and the timeline does not need to be separately notable by any WP guideline or policy I can find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your first source is a review of a book about conservatism in the U.S., and the reference to "timeline" actually means history. Your second source is a book from ICON Group International that lists all the sources that use the term conservatism over a 2500 year time period. Do you think you could read your sources before presenting them. TFD (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since I specifically said it was a review, I wonder why you felt the need to act as though I had not called it a review. The fact is this All timelines are is a sequential list of events in the history of a topic. That is what a "timeline" is. And that is true of all the "timeline" articles on Wikipedia. If a topic is notable, its history is notable. A "timeline" is simply a chronological view of the material related to that history - and clearly does not neet separate notability, and, in fact, none of the "timelines" on Wikipedia would come close to separate notability! Thus that argument is not only not based on any policies or guidelines, it fails on a simple reductio argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a little confusing. Are you saying that you don't need to have a sourced timeline on which to base the wikipedia article? But rather, you can take any history book and use it's content to determine what to include/exclude in the timeline? aprock (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        note: the "Webster" source (second source listed above) is published by Icon Group International, which uses proprietary methods to automatically convert database/internet search results into a book. I'm not really sure such qualifies as a reliable source. aprock (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Allitt claims that the U.S. has a conservative tradition that pre-dates 1945 and argues that certain Americans, such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were conservatives. But his opinion is not definitive, some people call Lincoln a "liberal" and TR a "progressive". Do you agree with Allitt or are you just supporting an article that you know will lead to controversy? TFD (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the criteria for WP:LISTN, and it seems the article is totally subjective leading to original research and synthesis. Who is to say what is liberal or conservative throughout history, especially considering the changing definitions? Dave Dial (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will Beback. This is a tough call for me, in part because I believe that there could be the possibility of something encyclopedic somewhere in there, and partly because I see some merit to the arguments for renaming, per aprock and MastCell. But look: the prominent treatment given to Clarence Thomas, while Felix Frankfurter, among a great many other possible names, is absent, points to a WP:UNDUE problem that may simply be insurmountable. Currently, the page reads as though "let's just rush through that early Edmund Burke stuff, so we can get to the good stuff about Sarah Palin". This page has become the new Militant atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khoder Pore Ma

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

Prod denied. Filming has not begun and there has not been significant coverage, thus per WP:NFF, it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article BOVINEBOY2008 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fortyhands

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. References included are to a self published source and a book which makes only passing mention of this adolescent prank. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sort of Obviously I won't sob uncontrollably if this gets deleted but it might actually meet the notability threshold (whatever that means for drinking games). Take for instance this albeit short article in The Stranger [30] which is entirely devoted to the subject or this tasteful account from the Real Detroit Weekly [31]. I think it's reasonable to call that significant coverage in reliable sources although I'll concede that both pieces are more comedy than journalism. The Google News search shows that the term is used though mostly by victims of moral panic. (this presentation of Minneapolis City Council is fun...) This is probably enough according to our fairly lax standards. Pichpich (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete I'd prefer to merge this into a list of binge drinking games if one existed. But the sources above are enough (if just) for WP:N though I don't think the subject is best served by a standalone article. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far we've got 2 !votes to keep the article based on 2 articles in small weekly newspapers ~~and a WP:ILIKEIT vote~~. Still not the kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG--RadioFan (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I disagree. That the papers are small doesn't prevent them from being used to meet WP:N. The letter of WP:N is met here. The spirit is a bit more questionable (coverage is largely humorous and in one case on the short side) which is why I very much prefer a merge. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The key here is significant coverage because, as you note, these small papers are covering this in a humorous light. This article also seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me as well, we dont need an article on every passing fad, especially one that isn't very well known. Even with mention on the How I Met Your Mother episode, coverage of this is limited to those mentioned above plus a few How I Met Your Mother episode recaps that mention the stunt in passing.--RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - RadioFan, please avoid characterizing other people's arguments as ILIKEIT. It's never a particularly good idea to use this kind of shortcut but it's especially ridiculous in the present case. I actually began my little blurb by specifically noting that my level of caring was fairly low and Hobit likewise asked to merge the article into a more substantive one which certainly suggests he's not in love with the current content. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't characterizing your !vote that way and probably shoudn't have characterized Pichpich's that way but still would like to see some more specific and strong arguments for keeping this article. Let's focus on the article and it's merits, shall we?--RadioFan (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge There seems to be little reliable coverage for this, but then again it does actually appear to be a relatively widespread practice. A few more sources would be nice, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. A merger to a list of drinking games would be the best option I think. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never commented before, sorry if I do something wrong, but this article was exactly what I was looking for in terms of information for a party, and interesting to boot. I understand if it doesn't meet any other criteria of any sort for retention, but it was useful for me at least. thanks for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.80.160 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never commented before as well, but I agree with the post above me. This article was actually useful, which should be a goal of Wikipedia.

Comment' Actually WP:USEFUL is not a goal of Wikipedia and is generally considered an insufficient argument for retaining an article.--RadioFan (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan, you really have to stop WP:LINKINGTOSTUFFINCAPS especially when it's misleading. Put yourself in that newbie's shoes. He's certainly surprised to learn (as I was) that usefulness is not an objective of Wikipedia and when he follows the link to see what that's all about he'll read examples about phone directories and travel guides (which are clearly irrelevant and not even close to what he meant) followed by the sentence "An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." That's not to say that the two ip editors above bring much to the discussion but there's no need to hammer them with a link to a half-relevant section of an essay that you're kinda quoting wrong. Perhaps we can take their input as solidifying the argument for the keep and merge solution suggested by Hobit. Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a guidebook of drinking games, though that would be useful as well.--RadioFan (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's talking about a guidebook? The proposal is to create a list which is very different as I'm sure you realize. List of museums in Paris is not a travel guide, List of Microïds games is not a game guide. Pichpich (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Yaghmaei

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

Non notable musician, not covered by third parties. Diego talk 02:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; there are no reliable sources for the article subject.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Whisper in Space

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

Article was deproded by article creator without addressing the concern of the PROD nomination. It still appears to fail WP:NBOOK. I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage, and particularly no coverage indicating widespread coverage at a level required for WP:NBOOK. There is also no evidence of any literary awards, etc. While such coverage may appear in the future, it appears this is simply too early for an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published ebook. Does not meet topical or general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:NBOOK. Yunshui (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. Article created by single purpose account seeking to promote the author of this book. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sutton Green, Surrey. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Souls' Church Sutton Green

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

This church lacks notability D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sutton Green. But first create the Sutton Green page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about moving to Sutton Green instead? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ to Sutton Green and reconstruct the content, so that it becomes one section of an article on that village. Sutton Green appear from the map to be a modest village half way between Woking and Guildford. The church appears to have a team vicar, so that it is not a mere chapel of ease, but it probably does not require an article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re-voted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move as above. It belongs to the parish of Woking(St Peter)and part of a team ministry sharing a minister with another church. I have checked that the building is not listed and have found no other evidence of notability. But Sutton Green itself does indeed seem to merit an article, and Sutton Park (not to be confused with the one in Birmingham) is listed as are some buildings in the village. --AJHingston (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We do have an article on the village, at Sutton Green, Surrey. Deor (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take back my earlier suggestion. Also, I made Sutton Green a redirect to Sutton Green, Surrey D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sutton Green, Surrey. I have merged the content of this article there, so that there is now nothing to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Facebook features. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friend (Facebook)

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

Oi... where to begin here. This is a well referenced article, certainly... but its just not an encyclopedic topic. Some of the sourced facts could certainly be added to Facebook, but otherwise this reads like a how to on the feature within Facebook (something well documented by that website) and a collection of interweaved dictionary entries compiled together with some Steven Colbert. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Facebook features. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Facebook features. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Facebook features, with a second preference to Merge. →Σ τ c. 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Deschamps (ice hockey)

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

Subject isn't notable - doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY Dkchana (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say winning the Michel Bergeron Trophy is a claim to notability. Patken4 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards aren't part of NHOCKEY anymore. However, he is a mere 18 games away from meeting the requirements so its a bit of a ridiculous nomination in my view. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards not a part of NHOCKEY? That's only going to cause problems... Patken4 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were actually removed because of the problems they were causing where people kept debating what "major" meant when it came to awards. All that is left now is First All-Star Team member or Career Top 10 in scoring in the league and All-American. Anyone who wins most of the big awards are likely to also be on the First All-Star team so it won't change things for most people. But it stops those with minor awards like scholastic player of the year from having a claim. -DJSasso (talk)

If he got coverage in reliable sources for getting the trophy, though, does it really matter whether we think the award is notable or not? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No as long as he meets the GNG then NHOCKEY goes out the window....I was just pointing out something in his comment since he likely hadn't seen the changes to the notability guideline. Just need to find reliable sources talking about him in significant detail. (and for more than just winning the award because if the only articles talking about him are about him winning the award that is a WP:BLP1E issue. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gupz Saund

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

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSICBIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage in independent reliable sources is not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Jeff Bhagyan

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

A blogger who runs and most likely owns the ZOMG Network, which started in January 2011, but the blog site, ZOMGitsCJ started earlier. I'm unable to find any reliable sources about him. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Tribell

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

Non-notable up-and-coming minor poet. Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brentalfloss

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

No reliable sources for notability. Searches give subject's own website and YouTube/FB/Twitter pages, booksearch gives wikimirror book only, news search gives passing mentions only. Seems to fail WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Yunshui (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should also briefly address the sources given in the article: two are local reviews of plays written by brentalfloss (even if the plays themselves are notable, WP:NOTINHERITED), one is an article about music in videogaming which features a single quote from the subject (barely even a passing mention), one is an iTunes listing and one is a (low) chart listing. None supply the required notability to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – In addition to what's already cited in the article, with a quick search I found this article in the Times-News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. One more of those (to fulfil the "multiple sources" criterion at GNG), and I'll withdraw the nom. Yunshui (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable reliable sources in the article and the article above quoted by user:Ron Ritzman, which I added to the article: *"YouTube phenom credits ‘personal ramblings' for success." From Burlington Times News. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BASIC, several independent sources can be utilized combinationally to demonstrate notability for topics about people. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Odd the Times article doesn't appear in a Google news search. Glad someone found it. I found an interview he did at http://www.peoww.co.uk/the-peoww-conference-brent-brentalfloss-black/ which looks like a reliable source. Dream Focus 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Elbahat

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to verify any of this unreferenced biography. The-Pope (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not that I have any real interest in the topic (or do I care about the outcome of this AfD .. just stumbled on it by luck), just wanted to let you know that a search in Arabic of his name (عماد البهات)returns some 10,000 results on Google [32]. TonyStarks (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Article was under not the best spelling (Elbahat instead of El Bahat) so I have moved, and do see arabic sources beyond the English one I added. Nomination was sound at the time. He's not a hugely established director, but does appear to have 2 feature films under his belt with coverage to match.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 08:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing here, (vague claims excluded) in the article or in my search any assertion as yet noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seeing them if you're not looking in arabic, "عماد البهات" e.g., [33], Filfan.com article on El Bahat and directing after being an assistant director - fyi, filfan is owned by Vodafone Egypt and is one of the primary news sources covering Egyptian cinema, which is the center of the Arabic film industry.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milowent is right. Google translator for that link shows ample coverage. [34] Dream Focus 02:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclod

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

I could not find any source providing significant coverage of the subject. Very few gHits as well. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess GHits were sufficient to establish that the game existed, but I found nothing beyond hints/cheats sites. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I only found an eBay auction for this game. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Le

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

Per WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E, this should be a page on her disappearance, not the individual, if the crime is a well-documented historic event (which that I would question too). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Murder of Michelle Le per Notability of criminal acts, which states "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." This disappearance has received widespread media coverage in Northern California for months, and her body was identified today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly moved the article, and have added a reference verifying her death, and two other references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit Cullen. No more justifcation to delete. Richmondian (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This case is pretty notable in Northern California and many such murder articles like Murder of Annie Le exist.—Chris!_c/t 04:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with user Chrishmt0423 on this one..... I see no reason for deletion or merging at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Presbyterianism. No actual sources have been presented by the "keep" side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church

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

Article about a small splinter group that fails to meet WP: GNG (indeed, it has only four congregations!) Also, the only sources are primary. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am in favor of keeping the content of this article. It may be more appropriate that it be included in an article about different Presbyterian Denominations in the United States. There is such a category already, but not a main article as there is with some categories. Sterrettc (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided other than citations to the denomination's own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note that, as suggested by Mark Arsten below, there are few Google hits that are about this denomination. In fact, searches for "Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church" tend to turn up more references to individual church congregations by this name which are not members of this denomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, I think all denominations (rather than churches) are de facto notable. Articles such as this are useful to the encyclopedia for people wishing to navigate through the maze that is Presbyterianism. Category:Presbyterian denominations and List of Presbyterian denominations in Australia illustrate the sort of thing I mean. Size doesn't matter of course. StAnselm (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although denominations are normally notable, typically there are independent sources that discuss those denominations. Does this denomination show up in reference books that cover Christian denominations, Presbyterianism, or other topics? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a denomination not a single congregation. Problems over the lack of WP:RS should be dealt with by tagging for independent sources to be provided, not by deletion. Many articles still need better sourcing, but we do not automatically delete them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just looked through Google News Archive and Google Books and I couldn't find anything about this group. There are other churches with the same name, I think, so searching is a bit tricky. At the moment though, since we need secondary sources to develop a valid encyclopedia article, I think deletion is best. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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