Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 20

< 19 September	21 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Ones

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

I do not see any third party reliable sources to show that this webcomic is notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information in the article why this webcomic is supposed to be notable. --84.57.177.125 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search brings up only primary sources or unreliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim made for notability, no external sources. LK (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Blum

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

Lacking reliable sources to establish notability of a biography. There are some hints to notability, and the individual certainly exists- however, aside from having produced works and being in a couple coffee-table books, there are no sources discussing Blum- or even half-decent sources discussing Blum's work.

The page creator, Studio.LA, is an SPA account, having only created/edited Blum's page and very likely someone at her publicist's office, Fahey Klein Gallery.

I am fine with being proven wrong about the lack of sources, but as someone who knows nothing about hip art/gallery photography I couldn't find anything. tedder (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for models and photographers. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably self-promo. I'm sorry, Sylvie. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The article is too short and poorly sourced to assert norability. --Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Berryhill

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

Aside from WP:CRYSTAL that the individual may be notable in the future, no reliable sources establishing notability in the present or past. Strongly suggest deleting article and letting it return after the election circus is over; this is a pattern that has been used on other not-yet-notable individuals' pages. tedder (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that he is only a candidate and has not held office, but the sources provided in the article suggest that he has received enough coverage to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia sees lots of these types of articles come election time. Currently fails significant coverage in independent reliable sources necessary to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. References #1 is a collection of stats, #2 and #3 are local election coverage (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), and #4 is from the subject's website (i.e. not independent). Location (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - There was quite a bit of support to keep this similar situation Stephene_Moore, the rescue editors added some cites but its the same, same imo, they are neither as yet worthy of a wikipedia BLP, if they win the election they immediately do. If one is kept the other should be also kept and the long held situation that political candidates are not notable no matter how many mentions they get in the local or even a few national articles, should be changed if that does not apply any more. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons set out by the nominator, and it seems to be a hotbed for WP:BLP and WP:Battleground problems as well. EnabledDanger (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per my comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (then redirect) to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010. My rationale is that the subject's present notability, such as it is, is tied to this his pursuit of this office. Mention him there, and of course, break out a full bio if he prevails. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to wiktionary. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ni hao

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

This should be changed to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, as it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for articles (particularly WP:NOT#DIC). It's a mishmash of dictionary material (usage notes, speculative etymology, corresponding phrases in other languages), OR, and speculation. 你好 is not a greeting that has been adopted in other languages, like hello and ciao nor does it have a widespread cultural connection beyond its linguistic one, like as-salamu alaykum (which is used in many Muslim but non-Arabic-speaking cultures). I made it a soft redirect, and that edit was contested by an IP who did not provide an edit summary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-refirect to wikt:ni hao, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect per nom. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect without prejudice to creation of an actual article on the phrase, akin to the Hello article. But at present, if you stripped out all the parts that are either speculative or unsourced (as we should do if the article remains), all you'd be left with is a dicdef, and that's what wiktionary is for. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per nom. Its a common word/phrase, but there's no real encyclopedic content. Cnilep (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per nom. BlueRobe (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Manoles

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

I deleted the article through proposed deletion, but the author requested that it be restored (which I did). The article has no sources, and a search for sources has come up empty. There are certainly claims to his notability, that he had a large following and edited an influential periodical, but again there are no sources to verify this. I would not have restored the article if the subject was still living per WP:BLPPROD (but the article claims that he died this year). The current attempt at providing sources in the article is vague and confusing (at least to me). -- Atama頭 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even in Greek, his name comes up mostly on obituaries, and these only from religious sites of forums, not one from a mainstream news source. As for his influence and following, they may have been "great", but that was the case probably in his parish and the rather small fanatical Orthodox fringe community to which he seems to have belonged. I can see no wider notability not even for Greece, let alone for an English-language international encyclopedia. Constantine ✍ 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search reports only 10 results, all quoting this Wiki page, while Yahoo has absoluting none. Delete it. Dinkytown talk 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Keristrasza (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association de Karaté japonais du Québec

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

There is insufficient third person sources to justify an article. Nor does the article attempt to satisfy notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 hits in gnews doesn't cut it. [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication in the article of why this organization is notable and I couldn't find any independent coverage showing notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following WP:DIRECTORY. Janggeom (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD was listed on the log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keristrasza (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Luis

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

Santo Luis is a minor league baseball player who has never been at the major league level. He has spent only 13 games at the AAA level. As of this exact moment, I do not believe he is notable enough for a page, however that could change if he gets called up to the big leagues. One thing he has going for him is he spent time on the Boston Red Sox 40-man roster if I recall correctly. Alex (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. These guys don't all need to be AfD'd, you can just go ahead and merge them. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Alex (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better to propose a move rather than just moving it with no consensus. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that we have consensus, as all of these active players get merged. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can be bold in merging, but when it's a borderline case like this it would be better to establish consensus on the specific article, not a blanket consensus on every minor league article. This, this, and this might not be enough to convince you or me he eastablishes the general notability guidelines, but it may be for other users. As I said, this case is borderline. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players per prior consensus. Vodello (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuano, Ecuador

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

Article for a small village in Ecuador, consisted entirely of material copied from other websites. After removing copyvio, I have been unable to find any significant information about this village from reliable sources. There is nothing left to keep. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding policy that all inhabited named places are notable. This "small Quechua Indian village"[2] even has three hotels.[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that was more a tradition than a policy (I can't find any policy at WP:N). Does it apply even when there is no verifiable information other than the name of the settlement? Also, for what it's worth, two of those hotels appear to be located near to but not in the town, and the third is in the Galapagos Islands. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've done a good job of finding sources for the article: all I could find were travel agencies. They're not all reliable sources, but I suppose we should take what we can get. I'll withdraw the AFD. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) by Wifione (and 90 min later again by Jayron32). Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual eugenics

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

There seems to be something very wrong with this article. The title is suspicious in itself. "Homosexual eugenics" is a phrase with a mere 173 Google hits and none in Google Scholar or Google News. It does get 3 hits in Google Books, all to the same book, which appears to be a crank work called "The Actual Naming of John F. Kennedy's Assassins: The Vatican Ciphers". I don't see any of that corroborating the claim this "is a field of study", at least not under this name.

The link to eugenics is reasonable for the pre-WWII stuff but quite tenuous thereafter. It is not demonstrated that this stuff is related to eugenics at all or that the article as a whole covers a single, coherent topic.

There is also a fair bit of obvious POV writing in here. What the hell is "homosexual supremacism" and why is one quite minor medical news story given the grand heading "Medical advancements"? Why is the National Institutes of Health logo here? What is it illustrating? Isn't it just providing a spurious air of legitimacy to a rather dodgy section?

This article seems to be an unencyclopaedic mish-mash of stuff (which is to say WP:SYN), with a minimally notable neologism for a title, some of which may belong in other articles (e.g. eugenics) and some of which does not belong here at all. DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV essay. When the first line you encounter in the body is: Because homosexuality rarely existed during the height of the eugenics movement of the early 20th-century, very little reference was made explicitly to this branch of the science. you know it's time to break out the hip-boots. This is a pretty much unabashed anti-gay advocacy piece best suited for Conservapedia. Carrite (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to have been created by a block-evading user to judge by checkuser results, though I do not know the exact chronology of the matter. May be eligible for CSD G5 as a result. - Vianello (Talk) 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the one who brought the whole sordid sockpuppeting matter to light, my reasoning should be obvious, but otherwise, as per above. KaySL^talk 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply I was the one who did, and I apologize if it came across as if I were trying to claim credit or somesuch. - Vianello (Talk) 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Oh, no no no! That wasn't my intent, I was only referring to you for your reasoning, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were claiming any credit :). Edited accordingly. KaySL^talk 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted I have deleted the page speedily. Can the closing admin please review the deletion and close this discussion asap if all is in order? Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs

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

There is only one source for any of the content in this article: the discogs website and forums. The creator of the site is the most cited source. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long established, very well-known database with high volume of traffic. WP:ATD Keristrasza (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adding this article to the log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Weak keep if it's the largest, why aren't there more sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. this one paragraph discussion is the only source I could find, and it's in Spanish! Bigger digger (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. I was looking for an excuse to swap. Per the additional book note below, I think there's sufficient basis for me to call this notable. It ranks higher than the en.wp article for a "discography" Google search, which can suggest the strength of sites linking to it. WP:WEB also suggests "Google sitelinks also provide evidence of site importance and credibility." and this seems to apply here. Not the strongest grounds for a keep, but if a site is useful enough for wp to regularly use as a source, has some sourcing and can meet part of a notability guideline then that's 3 reasons... Bigger digger (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD was open since the 9th but AFD template was never placed on the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keristrasza. One of the biggest music databases around, with significant history. Also used through {{Discogs}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a few relatively minor GBooks hits for it - including this one that says its the "...largest online database of vinyl discs and one of the largest online databases of electronic music releases". I realise that as far as significant coverage goes this is slim, but I feel sure there's more out there, and we could let it go with a refimprove tag for now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the largest database of this kind for vinyl, that alone makes it notable. Here's the ref for that claim. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need improved, but the basis of the article is factual. More citations can be added, some of the sources are already listed here. Discogs has it's own Wikipedia template used on many artist articles.Record collector 1000 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroposophy: a radical alternative view

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

WP:OR - this essay seems at heart to want to use the writings of one man to rebut another Wikipedia article ("When the above indications of Rudolf Steiner are understood in practice, it will then be clear that Anthroposophy is not, as the main Wikipedia entry suggests: a spiritual philosophy , but rather a human capacity latent in all human beings[...]") Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - though entirely well-meaning, it's more of a personal statement than an encyclopedia article. hgilbert (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is a personal essay through and through, not an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.18.166 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely WP:OR, with no references. BlueRobe (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adding this article to the log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR personal essay. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unwikified and unsourced original essay. When you see the subtitle "a radical alternative view," you know that there are POV axes being ground — which is not part of the Wikipedia mission, obviously. Carrite (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal essay obviously—Chris!_c/t 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As improved; now shows notability DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Ferguson

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

This article appears to be a sympathetic obituary written by a relative, friend, or colleague of the article subject. There's little doubt Dr. Ferguson was a fine fellow. However, the article links to no reliable sources, and a Google search does not return results indicating that Thomas William Ferguson merits an encyclopedia entry. Abbruscato (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as memorial essay for an individual failing to meet notability guidelines. Condolences to his family. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep after the rewrite. It would nice to see a footnote documenting this: "In 1993 he organized the world's first conference devoted to computer systems designed for medical consumers." —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

Delete - seems to fail WP:PEOPLE, I can't find any suitable sources. Bigger digger (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I found a few sources at Google about this doctor, but not much. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pending~~ This guy looks like he may have been notable. He does appear to have been a pioneer in the movement to empower patients and make them partners in their own health care. Searching under variations of his name is finding hits, for example [4], [5]. The New York Times [6] and USA Today [7] mention his books. Give me a little time and I'll see if I can document his achievements. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As written, this easily fails. A heavy re-write is needed, but I feel there is enough material to construct a biographical article. It should be noted that he also went by the name Tom Ferguson, which yields a few hits including Medscape and New York Times obituaries (which differ on his place of death). He's been written up during his life as well. Combining "Medical Self-Care" (his magazine) and Ferguson yields several hits, [8] I think there is enough for notability; the article needs to be rewritten to reflect what can be sourced.Novangelis (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There, I just did a complete rewrite, with sources and plenty of evidence of his notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With a new re-write and sources the person is shown to be notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Novangelis are sufficient grounds for an article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Dragons

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

This article cites no independent published reliable sources to demonstrate notability. A check through Google and Google news turns up no suitable sources significantly mentioning this sports club. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG and no sources to pass WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides a few primary sources I found nothing to suggest that the article is notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I could find in terms of sources was this. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above (Serbia)

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

Notability, page provides no sources other than a link. (Buttons (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 04:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (native speaker here). Pretty much like a Facebook party: they create some buzz here and there, but it's more like humorous internet activism than a real deal. They were noted in a short news by a major newspaper. According to a commenter there, "I couldn't believe they would register, they make so good fun on Facebook". Fine, but until they make some good fun on elections, they shouldn't make fun on Wikipedia. No such user (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As far as I can tell, this has not been on the AfD log before 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapmetal

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

Non-notable unsourced (through reliable sources) fictional character, a merge to a minor characters list may be appropriate but none seems to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; there are not enough extant WP:RS on any of the Transformers characters we're seeing lately to create a list of minor characters, and thus, fails WP:FICT and WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Even a list needs reliable sources, so this can't even really be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a case where it actually makes sense to delete. --Divebomb (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Listing on AfD log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who the hell actually looks at this stuff lol... yeah this is worthless -- Talk «««OisinisiO»»» Talk 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and redirect to Scrap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poor article should go. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Cybertron_characters#Other Decepticons as that's the place that talks about him. Mathewignash (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Scrap- another hopeless Transformers trivia article. Nothing even remotely resembling adequate sourcing, no real assertion of notability. Just a lot of trivial, indiscriminate scraps of pointless information. Reyk _YO! 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Throne

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

Not noteable future EP without a tracklist. Violates WP:CRYSTAL Red Flag on the Right Side 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not notable? It's only from the two biggest artists in rap. humblefool ® 03:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No release date, no tracklist, no cover = not noteable. Red Flag on the Right Side 03:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreeing with Static here, since information about the album is incredibly vague. The article can be remade after there is more information about the album. For the being, non-notable album and possibly WP:CRYSTAL. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Now, some sources are starting to appear. It took some time for this to happen. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable performer, yes, but work is only an EP, still 3/5 unreleased (AFAICT), non-charting, non-award-winning, with only the briefest of mention from the article's refs. Per WP:NALBUMS, certainly not worthy of its own article, not much need of even a paragraph in West's article (and I notice that this article is really only five sentences long). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will not stay short. Kanye plans to release music every Friday until Christmas. So there will be more. Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.128.77 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Nymf _hideliho! 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This does not appear on the AfD log for September 1 or 2. Listing for the first time (as far as I can tell) now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon for an article. Would it kill you fanboys to show a little patience?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to GOOD Music as article fails notability criteria for albums. There is no tracklist and cover. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tracklist, or any other arbitrary measure, is not necessary. It is enough that there are good sources. Future albums that meet the general notability guidelines should not be deleted because they lack album artwork, etc. Savidan 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is short, the article is well sourced (also, the first single has been released since the article was nominated for deletion). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restless Heart (Novel)

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

Entirely non-referenced, possible self-promotion, and possibly created by the book's author, User:T-Billiam (speculation: a name somewhat similar to T. William, albeit a possible Greek β grapheme replaced for the "W" in his last name), whose self-started biographical article, T. William Phillips is also being considered for deletion as self-promotion. Article's subject is a self-published book. Reviews for the book can be found on the T. William Phillips article (why they aren't being used on this article is unknown) and are being considered non-notable due to their pay-for-review status. Quick Google search brings up only results for a band, album, lyrics. Direct conflict with Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Self-publication. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously extremely concerned with T. William Phillips and his novel, Restless Heart for rather unwarranted reasons. Surely some obscure article on Wikipedia of all places is far more worthy of your time and concentration than my own, and it's obviously much more important to you than it is to me, so please delete. I have no desire to tend to it. Enjoy your wasted days searching for articles to disapprove of. I don't know what the credible and esteemed Wikipedia would be without you. T-Billiam (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well sourced and notable. Deletion nomination is highly suspect.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also on the terrorism related discussions Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism].AMuseo (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is about a notable series of rocket attacks over a period of years that continues to be in today's news because of intelligence information form American, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence agencies that more such attacks are planned. I have changed the article title to Rocket attacks on Eilat/Aqaba to reflect the contents of the article.AMuseo (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable article about a news event: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which news event are you referring to in the singular? The Al Qeda attack on American naval ships? The rocket that killed a Jordanian soldier in a Jordanian military hospital in 2005? The rocket that killed a Jordanian cab driver at the Intercontinental Hotel in 2010? The recent American travel advisory? Please be specific, because there are a great many news events covered in this article.AMuseo (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw now that the article has been moved to a new name, so the text is maybe different then the previous. But it now contains a lot of different things that have really no connection to each other, why would rockets fired from Jordan hitting Israel in 2005 have any relation to rockets fired from Egypt hitting Jordan and Israel in 2010? Attacks on Israel in this article can be merged to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, attacks on Jordan can be merged to List of terrorist incidents, 2005, etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is inexcusable that you did not read the article before you voted to delete, and even worse that you did not read the article history and check your facts before making false assumptions in a second comment even when your errors were pointed out to you. The article has been returned to its original title. I put the 2005 attack into the article on the day I wrote it. Do you often just come to AFD pages and type delete without reading the article?AMuseo (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I didn't know if the text was changed ("maybe different") I cant remember everything. Why would I read it again when I thought it was the same article? "August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (2nd nomination)", I have read it now and I still don't support a separate article here, so: delete/merge is what I believe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever read it, you could not have thought that it was an "article about a news event" When it is and always has been an article about a series of news events. You obviously read only the title and jumped to incorrect conclusion. You are responsible for the factual accuracy of assertions that you make in Wikipedia discussions.AMuseo (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went back now and I saw that I was right: [9], there were a couple of sentences in the "Similar incidents" section, but the overwhelmingly part of the article was about one thing only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You actually read the article. Good for you. But although you denigrate them, the "sentences" were there. Which is to say, you were wrong. We all make mistakes.AMuseo (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't wrong. "Similar incidents" section was not about the articles main topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMuseo, your personal, indirect and condemning tone is not needed and not good for the debate. Please change that. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with SupremeDeliciousness's writing here. The article was deleted for a week until recently, and afterwards you changed the title there (here it's the same), one hour before SD wrote here. -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is everything wrong with entering a deletion debate without reading the article.AMuseo (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recurring phenomenon, worthy of article. Poliocretes (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep now that there have been even more mention in news about these events. Very clearly important article that continues to be discussed in media long after they happened. Anyone who votes here saying it should delete based on WP:NOTNEWS obviously is voting for some reason other than based on policy and did not properly look at article and realize it is several events that continue to gain in media attention. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Event. This is a pretty open and shut case. The geographical scope of all the events includes Jordan and Israel; the most recent event includes Egypt and the Palestinian Authority as well. The most recent event had long-term effects on Egypt-Hamas relations, Jordan-Hamas relations, Palestinian Authority-Hamas relations, Egypt-Israel relations, the status of Eilat under the US State Department's travel warnings, and so on. All three events, both individually and collectively, have received broad coverage in mainstream sources and continue to do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided thorough rationale in previous AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Your argument was that "Same editor has been spamming every Israeli-terror article with AFDs", where it was pointed out that different editors had nominated the different articles listed. Bigger digger (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage is significant and ongoing, and the impact seems measurably large, so WP:EVENT seems to be satisfied. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to relevant rocket attack article. This is now a collection of news, which still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, I have to disagree with the interpretations of WP:EVENT above. The tl;dr summary is that these events have no impact, as evidenced by the lack of sources discussing repercussions and further developments of any note. The point by point discussion is here:

"Events are 'probably notable if they have enduring historical significance" - this is just another set of rocket attacks, so fails here.
"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - Impact? No, just reporting from the NY Times and BBC, as two possible sources that would demonstrate this, I have no reason to think others would be different. No re-analyzing at all.
"No lasting impact" per the WP:EFFECT part. Please can no-one suggest that a disagreement over US travel advice counts as lasting impact, with, to quote the article heading "Political ramifications".
Next is WP:GEOSCOPE: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." Comes down to impact again. Where are the sources that suggest this had a big impact - has tourism in Eilat and Aqaba fallen? Are people leaving the towns?
Still with me? Depth of coverage now, "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." Missing in-depth again. It also says "Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information, is often considered to be routine reporting" - I would classify all the reports here as routine in terms of rocket attacks.
Nearly there. WP:PERSISTENCE says coverage going on after the event could indicate notability, but this GNews graph suggests this isn't the case. This article is interesting - if there was a source that said the talks actually were derailed by this attack I would be interested to see it.
Last one! WP:DIVERSE, the easy part here is that the sources are diverse but fail WP:NOTNEWS.
I am always keen to see new sources which would change my mind and make this article compliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, but at the moment they're not here. From searching, I think this is because they don't exist. It would help to discuss any issues you have with my individual points below here, rather than inserting them into the middle of my argument. Ta. Bigger digger (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is clear from the sources that the events directly involved three countries and caused a stir among the politicians of two or three others, since the sources are by your own admission diverse, and since your own news graph shows that none of these events have ever stopped receiving coverage, I fail to see what set or nature of sources could possibly change your mind. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source that repeats what AMuseo writes below would do nicely. At the moment there are lots of sources that say "there were some rocket attacks on two towns" but none (so far, to my knowledge) that say "there were some rocket attacks on two towns because... which means that..." Show me those and I'll happily reconsider my vote, but note that the tourist notification brouhaha doesn't sway me. Bigger digger (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added. Do reconsider.AMuseo (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to editors: This is a relist, so there are already similar recent discussions available. I would like to ask anyone with a new or policy-improving level view to mark that as such. That would help me greatly. Re other posts: to help those of you who wish to copypaste the same arguments, here are the five previous discussions (mind you, they didn't produce a thing, so beware before you copy): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Further, this time I do not take WP:DRAMA and such lightly. If you can't discuss on topic or without typographic effects, you should not write here. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that was aimed at me, I was the only one using typographic effects - I was attempting to copy the formatting as it occurs in the guideline. I think my !vote is more useful than the single line efforts, and apologies if you feel it's just an echo! Bigger digger (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What has previously gone unsaid in these debates is that these attacks and the repeated "alerts" of possible terrorist rocket attacks are linked by more than the fact that they have occurred. Eilat and Aqaba share a special geographical situation. They are cities located near enough to vacant, desert areas in Egypt, Israel , Jordan and Saudi Arabia the remote emptiness of which enables terrorists who can access these regins to set up rocket launchers, launch, and depart before security forces can locate them. The distances accommodate fairly primitive short-term rockets. So primitive, that it is hard to know afterward whether the terrorists were aiming at Eilat, at Aqaba or at both. Eilat is Israeli, which makes it a target. Aqaba has been a port of call for American warships, which makes it a target. And Jordan has suffered terrorist attacks in Amman, so it is clearly a target too. The targeting of these two cities is an interesting phenomenon in its own right. And God speed the efforts of the Egyptian security forces to locate the militants who are thought to be preparing another such rocket attack even as we quibble over the previous ones.AMuseo (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly it went unsaid. It is original research. (are you serious? ... all cities near a desert are targets ... Israel, Egypt, Jordan, US visited harbour is a target ...". Covers about everything, and everything. And you have tied a knot in the timeline). Last: as we squibble - who is? Please mind your language. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was mere laziness on my part. The sources were certainly there. As you could easily have discovered if, after reading my comment, you had looked for them. Instead of dismissing my remarks as unfounded. The sources are now in the article. The terrain od Sinai and lack of control of the population by the Egyptian government have made it a base of convenience for terrorism. I could add more, but this is only one of many articles that need work. And articles are not deleted for being inadequate, but for not being notable. this topic is notable.AMuseo (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In these debates, you wrote. Then, you are lazy you say, and I am supposed to solve that? Next, the part re the Egyptian security services. This you did introduce introduce in these debates and I have read. But that story is based on a story in an Egyptian state newspaper, told to them by that same Egyptian ss. So it's not just OR, it's also not RS. The moment of these publications was at the end of the second debate, so it's very understandable they were not discussed at the time. -DePiep (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC) ch fmt, adding last sentense-DePiep (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on this date back to the attacks on Taba and Sharm elSheik. You can find them, they're out there. I found and used recent sources. But talking to you is useless. No matter what sources and facts and arguments in conformity with WP:Event and WP;Notability are presented here it is apparent that your mind is made up and does not change in response to reasoned argument or even the presentation of the very new sources you have demanded.AMuseo (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another personalized attack, AMuseo. Stop that. I responded here on what you wrote here. If you can't stand being quoted - not my problem. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not news. Why are you not moving these attacks to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010 and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006? Kavas (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kavas, please do us all the courtesy to read articles before voting to delete, as pointed out below, your assumption that these attacks ere "apaestinian" shows that you commented without reading the article. I do understant that it takes a lot of your time to follow me here form another debate wherey ou and I disagreed. But having followed me, you owe it to yourself to read the article before embarrassing yourself with arguments that make it obvious that you voted without having done so.AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are different in the sense that they come not from Palestinian controlled territory but from the territory of nations with which Israel has peace treaties. They're not even necessarily Palestinian attacks, at least one is claimed by Al-Qaida, while Bedouins in the Sinai have apparently taken part in others. Poliocretes (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, there is not a list of Al-Qaida attacks on Israel. Right? Kavas (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The attacks represent a major event in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It was a regional incident (Jordan, Egypt, Israel) attracting an international reaction. Other modern terrorism-related articles involving far less destruction have their own nice big article. What more do editors want? This is far from OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fyi Just linked the article to USS Ashland (LSD-48) and USS Kearsarge (LHD-3), each of which had an existing section, but no link to this article. Also, the material I recently added included discussion in books on terrorism of the significance of the rocket attacks.AMuseo (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that article and was tempted to AfD it, but then I got to the Reaction part. This event had impact as it made the US administration consider plans for retaliation against Pakistan, it made Congress and Senate consider new laws, which were then criticised by other groups; Arabic newspapers commented on Obama commenting on the events, and those comments were in turn commented in. This is all evidence of the impact of the event. ~~By comparison, the article under debate offers a disagreement about travel advice.~~ I can see editors are still adding possible impact. So I'll keep out of this thread until closer to the close. Bigger digger (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapenos do exist wrote: I fail to see what set or nature of sources could possibly change your mind.

You respondedA source that repeats what AMuseo writes below would do nicely.

So I wrote a full section detailing the manner in which the ungoverned deserts of Sinai are a launching base for terrorists. And it turns out that that is not enough for you. You find something else to quibble about. I no longer believe that yours in a mind capable of changing in response to rational argument and fact.AMuseo (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMuseo, again you use "quibble", and a personalisation: "... is not enough for you". That is degrading the discussion, and not necessary. Again I ask you to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no cogent reason for deletion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misapplication of NOTNEWS policy. Clearly not the "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," which NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The matter seems quite notable and NOTNEWS is not applicable as this is not routine news of a mundane kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event. Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests. Elevating this event to an article does exactly that. If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political and military attacks in Palestine are notable - clearly, such a topic will receive many hits by those researching the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The article is well-referenced. BlueRobe (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I accept all thing Bluerobe said and article has very good References like bbc and jpost.--YOSHI mitsu 09:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a messy article that lacks a focus. I see no need to have separate articles on every town or couple of towns that have been rocketed, it would make much more sense to take any legitimate info here and centralize into a "Rocket attacks on Israel" article or something similar. These piecemeal articles just create a mess, making it more difficult for people to find useful information. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the number of news sources cited from different countries, ongoing coverage over several months, and especially the piece in time this is a clear keep per WP:EVENTS.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was publicized internationally as an event by itself, and then referred to widely in related 'secondary' articles/ --Shuki (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to deal with 2 of the objections: "this is just another set of rocket attacks" -- and all of them are notable. Like saying, this is just another invasion, or war, ; " International Impact? No, just reporting from the NY Times and BBC," That pretty much is basic evidence for international impact. Some of the opposes seem to be based on the person wish that this was not significant, or the personal feeling it ought not to be. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator (NAC) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Wilson

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

Unsourced BLP that was created in 2006 in conjunction with a political campaign. The individual's political aspirations were unsuccessful and there is insufficient notability in any other context to support inclusion. Note that there are several online websites that consist of the exact text as it appears in this Wikipedia article which credit 'randwilson.org' as the source, however the site is no longer active. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have decided to withdraw my nomination of this article, partly based on the excellent sourcing provided by Silver seren. As no other votes have been registered, can it simply be closed as a speedy keep? Apologies for the inconvenience. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vitas. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crane's Crying

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

Non-notable song. There is already an article on Vitas. Also delete redirect Rane's Crying Frankyboy5 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vitas: As per WP:MUSIC Ezhuks (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vitas, non-notable song, but might as well make use of the location now it's here. Bigger digger (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole grapes for fasting

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

Blatant WP:ESSAY, filled with WP:OR and lacking significant or reliable sources. — Timneu22 · talk 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, clearly WP:MADEUP. Roscelese (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete this complete pile of bollocks. Someone another 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:WTF!?!? Carrite (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal essay obviously—Chris!_c/t 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not even a particularly amusing hoax.AMuseo (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Relisting isn't a button you press when you're not sure what to do. Only relist when it is actually necessary. In this case, it is not, consensus is clear, so, we're done here. Courcelles 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole's Night In

The program isn't noble enough. --L.Geee 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) - (AFD created by User:LittleGee - linked to the account by Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - notable well referenced article. Nomination from a Saturdays fan appears to be connected to the deletion yesterday of their show Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Saturdays:_24/7 - I suggest eary closure. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Completely notable. --SitDownOnIt (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep notable, well referenced Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I probably could have NAC'd this as keep instead of relisting, but I would rather defer to an admin. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you did that, if you are unsure leave it alone, this is a clear close as keep it is not a BLP. annd there is no reason at all to relist. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has gone beyond the 7-day discussion period. When I come across an AfD that has gone beyond 7 days without being closed or relisted, I assume it has fallen through the cracks. I have found several AfDs in the past that were months old. I only relisted to get some admin visibility. Frankly, I don't care if someone comes along right now and closes this as keep. I typically only NAC technical matters that require absolutely no judgment of consensus, such as withdrawn nominations or open discussions where the article has already been deleted. It sounds like you would prefer I leave stale AfDs alone, without knowing who, if anyone, is watching them, and potentially for weeks or months. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Court-martial_of_Lt._Col._Terry_Lakin. And I will be full-protecting this redirect. Courcelles 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lakin

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

This poorly written stub fails WP:BLP1E. A redirect to the place where the event is covered, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Court-martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, has repeatedly been reverted. Sandstein 17:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Sandstein 17:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Court-martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. His name is a plausible search term and this Afd will serve as consensus for reversion concerns. Perhaps some sort of lock might need to be placed. Location (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails WP:BLP1E as stated. Bigger digger (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above... not much else to say about it besides "WP:BLP1E". bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: seems like a valid search term, but the subject isn't independently notable IMO, thus redirecting to the parent article listed by User:Location seems like a workable solution. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.585 Hubel Express

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

Seller/promoter/developer of the cartridge has indicated that the article was for advertising/promotional purposes. Please remove. Details regarding the issue are found in Talk:.700 Hubel Express. The .700 Hubel Express article should be deleted as well as it was intended as for the same purpose as the original author User:Hubel458 has indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 8 September 2010

Note: Listing in AfD log for the first time on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.700 Hubel Express has also been listed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of us have made good-faith efforts to work with the original content contributor. Unfortunately, there is a WP:COI issue with that editor. We have also been unable to validate any non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability. The only info available is on forums or WP:OR and is even under constant revision for key elements such as cartridge measurements. We tried, but I think it's time to give up. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having read through Talk:.700_Hubel_Express I would like to congratulate AliveFreeHappy and DeusImperator on their efforts to create a suitable article, well above and beyond normal efforts. Next time I hope you'll look for the WP:Reliable sources before going to so much effort! The article fails to assert notability through references to reliable sources, therefore it must go. Bigger digger (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifuddin Khalifa

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

Only has 2 references one saying the other is a hoax, a Google search only reveals biased or unreliable sources. May be a hoax. Was restored as a contested PROD. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The kid may be a faker promoted by the people around him, as one of the references claims, or he may be a prodigy according to the hard-to-believe claims in the only Reliable Source provided, "Scotland on Sunday". From Wikipedia's standpoint it doesn't matter. What does matter is that he is not notable. There are absolutely no Reliable Sources found about him at Google or Google News, with the sole exception of the article from Scotland on Sunday. If he really has been touring the world and converting thousands, as claimed, then there should be sources documenting his appearances, and his article should stay here regardless of whether we believe him to be a miracle or a fraud. Since such sources have not been found, the article should be deleted as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with MelanieN... whether he is legitimate or a fraud, there does not appear to enough coverage in WP:RS to substantiate either side of that coin and write an encyclopedic article about him. Ultimately non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital forensic imaging

AfDs for this article:

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

Second AFD, incoherent mess. Cannot find any significant mention in scholarly work (or indeed anywhere much else). Most of the sources relate to digital media imaging which is an entirely different thing (this appears to relate to digital images of sexual assaults etc.) Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a kind of Forensic photography and should be (trimmed and) merged to that article. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the creator can add a bit to Forensic photography as noted above, if he has anything supported by sources. So far, nothing here appears to need to be merged. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no sourced information to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. William Phillips

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

Reasons for deletion include: promotion of a self-published book, article apparently written by the author (who denies it on edit summaries and on his talk page), and the references cited are merely book reviews from companies that sell reviews, as pointed out by User:Slowart on the article's talk page. Aside from these references, article lacks actual secondary source references discussing the person and the article is written with an extremely intimate knowledge of the person's history, lacking objectivity. Article may be considered self-promotional and promotional in nature (the contributor had earlier added his name to a list of notable people on Cherry Creek High School), and a Google search brings up only the biographical subject's own website and paid-for book reviews. This article fails biographical notability on every level. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. T-Billiam (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circle gets the square. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T-Billiam, you need to be a little more persuasive with your argument than merely disagreeing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Slowart (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like to think I have a soft spot for first-time novelists, but this is blantant promotion of an obscure, self-published author. The book should probably be AfD'd too, if someone is so inspired VASterling (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just delete it already. This is just absurd and a complete waste of time. No further discussion necessary. Article should be deleted. Thanks for your unwarranted concern and interest. T-Billiam (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daze (song)

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

This article goes to some lengths to show how unimportant the subject is, asserting that "so far it has not made a major impact", unsurprising since it's form the "upcoming debut album" of an artist whjo does not appear to have a Wikipedia article. Number 76 is a subsidiary chart is as close as it gets to a claim of notability, and the article itself says this is not significant. Non-trivial independent sources? There are none. Notability by association with the producer is all that remains, and as we all know notability is not inherited in that way. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Normally a redirect might be appropriate, but there is no artist or album article to redirect to. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

360Amigo System Speedup

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

I can't find anything in the references that indicates notability. Seems to be spam more than anything. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Advertising --- uses the most advanced technologies available to analyze PC errors and speed up a slow PC for system tweaking software, one of many such on the market. No showing that this product has historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge It doesn't merit a standalone article. If there's a listing of such utilities in WP, perhaps it belongs there. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no indication of notability. The only independent source (other than the download link) is a review, but one review does not notability make. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Hersfold (talk · contribs) per A7: "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Article has also been salted by the same admin. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Brooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO Smilemeans (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Note that there are two suggested merge targets for this article so it's best to discuss that on the talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Montenegro

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

No evidence of notability just like Turks in the Czech Republic. I could find some sources but only in historical context. Meybe we can it merge into History of Ottoman Montenegro, Turks in Europe etc. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into History of Ottoman Montenegro, Turks in Europe etc. Takabeg (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Turks of Montenegro are a notable group who have been living there for centuries. I oppose to merging the artice with History of Ottoman Montenegro because this article is about Ottoman Montenegro and not the actual community. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can merge to Demographic history of Montenegro. Takabeg (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The (unsourced) material in the History section of the article belongs at History of Ottoman Montenegro because it is about Ottoman control of Montenegro, not about Montenegro's Turkish population. If there are sources to establish the notability of the more contemporary presence of Turks in Montenegro, then this article should be kept. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is probably because the article is still a stub. It has the potential to expand vastly. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, can you demonstrate that by providing some links to sources that would establish notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can be established in a number of ways:

a) The many census which also include the Turks e.g. the 1953 census shows 14,987 Turks living in Sandžak (http://www.sandzak.com/). But other sources also note the presence of Turks who still live in the region e.g. http://www.etno-institut.co.rs/GEI/GEI_LVI_1/cvorovic_56_1.pdf on page 147

b) Ottoman Turkish settelment which started in 1498

c) The introduction of Islam to the country by the Turks

d) The migration of thousands of Montenegrian Turks to the Republic of Turkey Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because the Turkish community is small does not make them any less notable considering the fact that they have been living in Montenegro for hundreds of years and have had a great impact on the country. Maybe you should be considering Jews in Montenegro for deletion but not this article.Turco85 (Talk) 10:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RECENT Wikipedia is not time-based; it is a long-term project and if it passes WP:GNG, simply concerning an historical topic is a completely invalid reason for deletion.--TM 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The Ottoman Turks conquered the place, ruled it for centuries and some of the contemporary population identify ad Turks. Granted. it's a paltry article as it now stands, but DKY is supposed to be for unnotalbe topics. Here, the topic is patently notable, the article is merely inadequate.AMuseo (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - hundreds of sources could have been found with simple Google searches, as I found with a few clicks. AfD is not for cleanup and finding citations. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demographic history of Montenegro or another appropriate article. This racial group represents an extremely small percentage of the population of an extremely small country. They are not even mentioned in Demographics of Montenegro. SnottyWong ^prattle 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Turks once controlled Montenegro and were a major political force in the nation. Just because now the population is small doesn't negate the historical population. The Jewish population of Ireland is tiny and was always tiny, yet no one would considering throwing History of the Jews in Ireland up for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Mar4d (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ceramics. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Ceramics

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

Majority of article is a "how-to" guide to the care of these objects, and remainder of the article is not worth salvaging. Delete" per WP:NOT. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsourced original essay as it sits. I'd advocate merger of some information to Ceramic, assuming that the care section can be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've put in a link to the source of this information plus I have re-written it to seem more factual and less like a guide. How do you think it looks now? --Joecolly (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It still has sourcing issues, but improving. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ceramic. I see only one reference, and whatever is of value here can be moved. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of it is a how-to guide and half of it is already covered by Ceramics. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge selectively to Ceramics--a section on practical matters is not inappropriate in a comprehensive article. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ringvaart Regatta

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

A non-notable rowing event in the Netherlands. A Google News search gives nothing but trivial mentions, none of them discussing the actual event. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Some coverage found [10] but almost all of it is in Dutch. Seems like this regatta might be notable because of its unusual length. It attracts more than 100 crews [11] from all over Europe and as far away as California. I wish somebody would find a way to document this as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drmies, why are you using Google News to establish notability? So if some article contents are not mentioned in Google News, which has only been getting G7 coverage since 2003 really, and western coverage since 2004/05, then it's not notable. That's a shockingly crummy way of establishing notability, and if thats your primary tenet for notifying articles for AfD, you should really stop now. scope_creep (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scopecreep, if you have some better way of searching for notability, please share it with us - instead of merely criticizing the nominator. Google News is one of the standard ways that we all search for indications of notability - along with Google Books and other sources. And if you have some indication that this regatta is notable, I'd like to see it. As I said above, I would love to find an excuse to keep this page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Familia TV Network

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

The article is written in a purely promotional tone, but I wasn't able to find the reliable sources that I could use to rewrite it more neutrally. Prod removed without other changes by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to GGAV Media Corporation, the parent company of the network per the network's website under the coverage section (as all stations owned by GGAV are listed as affiliates of this network). Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome

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

This material amounts to "Passing references to CFS/ME in TV shows". A discussion at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Cultural references concluded that a merge or selective merge to the main article was not desired, and it seems that an article by this title cannot stand alone as it is merely made up of (mainly unsourced) passing trivia. I have tried to find secondary sources on this topic, and I failed.

There's been an edit war over a redirect and proposed deletion, so I am bringing this here to resolve this. Fences&Windows 13:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Roscelese (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. StevieNic (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Chronic fatigue syndrome. Has to little information to merit a standalone article. Following merge, the talk page can be used to discuss whether or not to include content. Tatterfly (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh, I am generally opposed to even small trivia sections in articles, never mind an article dedicated to this type of thing. It borders on spam in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, oppose merge as it was already discussed, merged, and deleted from Chronic fatigue syndrome by consensus as Fences and windows stated above. Ward20 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ward20. There was never even enough content to meet the advantages mentioned in WP:IPCA. The current content is not worth merging, and discussion can proceed at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome regardless of the existence of a standalone article. In fact, this is probably one of those cases where a clean slate is the best encouragement to actual content building. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my previous comments on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Trivia, limited scope, not a secondary source in sight. JFW | T@lk 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; topic doesn't require a stand-alone article—Chris!_c/t 02:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no place in a medical article, much less as a standalone article. If it can be demonstrated that other medical articles commonly cite TV references, I might be convinced to change my vote to Merge, but I can't recall ever having seen any that do. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin J. Hinich

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

Self-referential sources and completely independent research Welshamerican123 (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While agree with the nom that this needs better sourcing, the subject appears to pass WP:PROF #5: "Mike Hogg Professor of Government".[12] The same source states that he "made seminal contributions to multiple fields of study including American politics, time series analysis, statistical signal processing and microeconomics" suggesting that he also passes #1. Location (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That source is from the University of Texas at Austin, where he taught. It is promotional material. And the source was created a day or two after Hinich passed away. Though I agree the content may be worthwhile, without sources other than UT Austin, the article in it's entirety must be deleted. 67.78.80.176 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Although I'm attempting to assume good faith, I cannot help but wonder if User:67.78.80.176 is a sock of Welshamerican123. User:67.78.80.176 appears to have started this Afd on the article page at 13:27, 20 September 2010 and Welshamerican123 completed the process four minutes later at 13:31, 20 September 2010. The IP currently has only six edits and all of those are in articles Welshamerican123 has edited. Location (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there ya I'm welshamerican123 I just don't login sometimes, is that relevant? I thought I got one vote right? No matter whether I just do the IP or username? I had to login to list it for deletion I think? 67.78.80.176 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking out your !vote for "delete" here. As nominator your "delete" is understood, and as you noted, you only get one !vote - although of course you can comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites give h index of 36, if I am correct, so passes WP:Prof #1 by miles. Nominator should read WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The entire thing is independent research what are you two thinking? Come on... I don't care if the guy invented the internet - Wikipedia is not the source for firsthand information. Period. I took a look at the source - it doesn't even have the information that is cited in the article. Welshamerican123 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Article has been reformatted to include a college newspaper article and Hinich's resume. The resume is, again, independent research, the college newspaper article does not create notoriety, and the article still contains largely uncited information. 67.78.80.176 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep He held a named professorship at a major university - "professor of Government and Economics, and the Mike Hogg Professor of Local Government" according to the university itself [13] That's criterion #5 under WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like whoever's edits have been with this article. The section "Research and teaching experience" is uncited, though - delete that or cite it, and I'm happy. Thanks! (Welshamerican123) 128.62.89.88 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that, too, since it is a direct copy from his biography. Location (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some editing, but there are enough sources to build an article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professorship at major research university, Fellow of his professional organization. And author of 9 books, which I just added to the article, besides over 100 peer reviewed journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the named chair (WP:PROF#C5) and the ASA Fellow status (#C3; note that ASA is highly selective in who they select as fellows, limiting it to 1/300 of their membership [14]). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Essay. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Model of Industrial Organization

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

The article is a pure OR and there are no sources to verify that it has gained wide acceptance. In fact, the model has been invented by the creator of the article himself. Shovon (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Original research, proposing a management model or theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per nom, as WP:OR. This looks like a copypasted term paper. --Ragib (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:OR—Chris!_c/t 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The diagram and article are creations by the article author and there is no independent indication of notability: WP:OR. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, essay, non-notable. Shiva (Visnu) 10:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Clear OR. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

's-Hertogenbosch Maaspoort railway station

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

Unsourced stub failing WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch ·comms 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear failure of WP:CRYSTAL. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was not listed on the AfD log for 2nd September, so I am relisting it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asWikipedia is not a place for speculation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yallwire

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the second go-around for deletion of this article. The previous time, the AFD closed as no consensus with a rather severe lack of participation. The original reasons for deletion still stand.

The article is about a web site with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides no independent sources. All references in the article are to their own web site. I've searched again and still find only press releases. Whpq (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but press releases found in Gnews, nothing of reliability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established using third party reputable sources. Press releases and other self-generated sources not good enough to keep. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Binswanger

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no evidence of articles/stories/books about the man. Hes given lectures (that's not special, many people do this) and he's appeared on Fox (that's not special, many people do this), and is a spokesman (claimed?) for a non-profit of a small cult. I don't see the evidence of notability. Merrill Stubing (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely has problems, including poor writing and a lack of sources in the article. Nonetheless, Binswanger's relationship with Rand is discussed in a number of sources (including The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, and The Ayn Rand Cult), and more recently he's been popping up as tv talking head, as even the nomination acknowledges. Does the nominator seriously argue that many non-notable people have been guests on multiple national tv news programs? --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Binswanger's relationship to Rand, his publications, his position within ARI, and his television appearances certainly combine to give him notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has more than enough 3rd party sources to establish basic notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple claims to notability; easily meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Binswanger is known as an important figure within the Objectivist movement. UserVOBO (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Priya Ranjan Trivedi

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

No indication of notability. I request this article be WP:SALTed, as it has been speedied several times before [15]

SPat ^talk 12:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) SPat ^talk 12:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs total rewriting. But subject seems notable enough as author of multiple books. The present article although looks to me as total advert. Shovon (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Delete. No reliable sources to suggest that this person is notable. Also, the article is an advert piece. Shovon (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find evidence of notability by reliable independent sources. Lots of exaggerated claims of fancy prizes and international renown, but very little actual evidence for these claims. Despite authoring some books and articles, could not find anything to conclusively say this person passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should this article perhaps be redirected to Indian National Green Party? Full disclosure: I had previously added a WP:CSD tag to this article, as I could see no context in one of its previous versions. Indian National Green Party is also likely to be an AfD candidate. On further reflection, I would argue that a minor political figure of similar status in, say, the UK, New Zealand or Canada would not have their notability questioned. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we filter through all the fluff, the only statement that could assure notability is that "he founded the Indian National Green Party". However, the only external source I found for this claim is this site, which lists him as current national president, not founder. I actually doubt the legitimacy of that site, and I'm not sure whether it refers to the more legit one referenced, for eg., here, (I'll be happy if someone can back this up). Same problem with the claimed list of international awards, none of which cite any sources. Thus, the article might be notable if we can provide reliable evidence for all the claims made, otherwise it is an obvious delete. SPat ^talk 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric power plant consultants in India

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

List of consultants in India with no indication of WP:Notability. Seems just a directory listing noq (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these consultants aren't notable, and a list of them aren't notable either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:NOTDIR -- The Anome (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wherry Maud

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

Notability zero. Concept album (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently the lesser known brother of Albion (wherry), with no sources or current notable use. Ezhuks (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; now that the article has been expanded greatly. --Ezhuks (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wherry is notable as it is one of only two surviving trading wherries. The other ~~five~~ six surviving wherries are wherry yachts. The boat is listed on the National Historic Ships Register. OK, the article needs expansion and improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note article retitled to Maud (wherry) per WP:MOSSHIP, rewritten, which should address the notability concerns expressed by the nominator. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an historic vessel (though no relation to Albion - different construction method) and some sourcing has been supplied. (I will admit to being a Norfolk man myself but don't think my judgement is clouded on this)GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Historic vessel. —Diiscool (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above and big thank you to Mjroots for a great rescue job. Nancy^talk 20:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, although I accept the nom was made in good faith and that at the time the article did not really assert the notability of the boat. I've also improved the Albion article from this to this. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Speedy Keep - NHS vessels are automatically notable. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Parsecboy indicated, anything on the register of National Historic Ships in the UK should be Speedy Keep — Kralizec! (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The souces and the NHS status do strongly indicate notability. Nice work, Mjroots. It's curious that the nom so curtly worded their objection to this article with no argument to back the statement up.--Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is not a very active editor. Let's be clear, This was the state of the article at nomination. At best, the claim to notability made then is slight, the nomination was made in good faith. Sometimes, nominating an article at AfD does lead to significant improvement of the article, as in this case. I happened to know the importance of this boat, as I know the restorers and lived in Norfolk for a number of years. It was on my long-term "to-do" list anyway. Now, anyone fancy creating articles on the other six wherries? Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a rare survivor of an important class of vessels. This is certainly notable. That does not necessarily mean we need articles on all the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 8 surviving wherries (9 if you count the half-sunken The Lord Roberts) out of over 300 built. All bar one of the survivors are also on the register - Hathor, Norada, Olive, Solace and White Moth, leaving Ardea as the only wherry not listed. Probably due to her history of being a houseboat on the Seine in Paris and thus outside the UK for many years. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update, National Historic Ships are in discussion with the owner of Ardea re inclusion on the register. Registration is down to the owner applying and the vessel meeting the necessary criteria. It is not something that can be imposed on a vessel against an owner's wishes, unlike the process for listing buildings. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable following Mjroots rescue. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never Been to Texas

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

Article originally claimed that this single got to number 1 in Ireland and number 10 in the UK, but both are demonstrably false per The Irish Recorded Music Association (you will need to enter "Power of Dreams" in the artist field and hit the search button) and The Official Chart Company respectively. Removing those fake claims, we are left with a non-charting (and therefore non-notable) single. No content whatsoever worth merging to the band's article. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom's points. Tarheel95 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too short to bother with merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A9 (as tagged). There is no indication, why this single is notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A9 does not apply in this case because the artist's article exists. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NSONGS. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Power of Dreams as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional medicines and drugs

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

Unnotable WP:listcruft. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this classic example of list-creep, pending someone supplying an argument that suggests that this is actually a notable topic for a list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Omegendorph of a list! "The good stuff comes from Stygia and should be chewed slowly. Does not affect Austrian accents." Woss? I want some too. Then delete. Curiously these kids never read Umberto Eco or Borjes or dare I mention Rablais - each of these can easily double this list. East of Borschov 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list needs to be pared back, and drugs that don't have citations or are not notable should be removed. Who would it hurt if the list is kept, there's some interesting content in there. Wlmg (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you look at the footnotes, none of the fictional drugs has a citation by a reliable source to establish notability. Thus the proposed cleanup amounts to blanking the article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Exactly how reliable a source is required for a fictional drug like Pylene-50? We're not talking about a BLP, it's pop culture fiction for pete's sake, cut the article some slack.Wlmg (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization, unclear inclusion criterion, no real citation by reliable sources to establish notability of the concept (only very tangential footnotes, with the rare reliable source having nothing to do with the subject of the article). "To be added" section? What the heck is that? BTW, List of fictional toxins with a similar subject somehow survived two AfDs and has no references what so ever.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where else should this information go, if not in a list? We can't use a category, because some of these substances are only notable in the context of a work, not individually. bd2412 T 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - this information doesn't have to be on Wikipedia in the first place.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Being sourced entirely to editors' interpretations of the various primary sources, this list is inherently prone to original research. If you chop the words "List of" off the front of the article title, do you get a topic that could stand on its own two feet in terms of verifiability and notability? No. So a list of these things is even less appropriate. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was previously AfDed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (2007), which closed as "no consensus". – sgeureka ^t•c 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that AfD was for the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles article.....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four lists were part of that AfD, and "List of fictional medicines and drugs" was the third one. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, completely missed that, sorry :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objections to cleanup per the List of fictional swords treatment. Not indiscriminate, not unverifiable, etc. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To quote the IP above, "unencyclopedic cross-categorization, unclear inclusion criterion, no real citation by reliable sources to establish notability of the concept (only very tangential footnotes, with the rare reliable source having nothing to do with the subject of the article)." Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why don't we just delete every list of poorly sourced fictional anythings like this:List of fictional computers. In absence of a wikipedia policy on pop cultural lists then it's going to be an endless game of whack of mole. I repeat Keep. Wlmg (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- you seem to be saying that we should loosen our inclusion threshold almost to the point of nonexistence when it comes to articles on fictional topics. May I ask why? In my opinion, the real world is much more important than any fictional one so if anything we should be more stringent when it comes to fiction. Reyk _YO! 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Judging by the preponderance of fictional lists the inclusion threshold is already near nonexistent. Though I would agree the real world is more important, tell that to the peeps who spend their whole lives in Farmville. This is all getting to be too much for me, Hal the fictional computer is telling me to take a "stress pill" and add that to list of fictional medicines if it's not already there.Wlmg (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important elements of /nb fiction are appropriate for a list. Considering the arguments in some recent AfDs, a few people think that no list of fictional elements can possibly be encyclopedic. All such lists can be sourced quite trivially--one finds the place in the fiction where they are discussed. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indulgent original research.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In order for this list to be an "unencyclopedic cross-characterization", the topic must not have been dealt with by reliable sources at all. Yet we find this not to be the case at all. Look at some Google Scholar discussions of Soma, most of which are unfortunately behind paywalls. Ditto some discussions of melange. The fact is that most entries in the tables have bluelinks to the works in which these drugs are mentioned demonstrates that the list is not indiscriminate: the inclusion criteria limit it to drugs discussed in notable works. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some fictional drugs and medicines are major elements of the works they are part of, and as such have been covered in academic literature, that is not under dispute. The issue is whether the list is worthy of an article and whether the inclusion criterion is appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to a complete rewrite as in List of fictional swords, but first there would have to be demonstrably enough notable entries to make a list necessary, and a clearcut inclusion criterion. Otherwise it is just an indiscriminate list of trivial entries that no one bothers to cleanup or make verifiable. Just like List of fictional toxins, or list of fictional cats.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here as to whether this should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS or kept per WP:EVENT and prior precendent. Perhaps these articles should be visited in several ~~years~~ months time, when we have the perspective of history to judge whether in fact these articles are actually notable. NW (Talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime however, I would recommend that an RFC be held to address the clash between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. NW (Talk) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks

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

Just a news story, no indication that this will be of long term interest so should be Deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. Codf1977 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many articles do exist with regards to bombing incidents as below:

29 September 2008 western India bombings

September 2007 bombings in Rawalpindi

September 2010 Quetta bombing

28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings

13 September 2008 Delhi bombings

September 2008 Peshawar bombing

14 September 2004 Baghdad bombing

September 2010 Lahore bombings

14 September 2005 Baghdad bombings

30 September 2004 Baghdad bombing

12 September 2008 Dujail bombing

15 September 2008 Balad Ruz bombing

A decision was initiated on talk-page for merger or movement of this article to 19 September Baghdad bombings which is a similar subject. This article should not be deleted as articles mentioned above. Humaliwalay (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep.Codf1977 (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Other stuff exists, yes. That other stuff exists is also quite irrelevant. I'd happily change my vote if anybody can supply evidence of lasting notability, but given that the event at hand happened yesterday... that seems unlikely. WP:NOTNEWS ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe these articles should exist for readers to get informed on particular incidents and happenings, there may be redirection for these articles in related articles like Bombings or September bombings etc. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Humaliwalay RahulChoudhary 11:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual WP:NOTNEWS reasons. I wish people would have an eye on the historical rather than sitting and refreshing Google News all day, looking for articles to write, i.e. WP:RECENTISM. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major attack. cant see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major attack, also odd considering that Wikipedia already has similiar articles. Shouldn't we have a permanent policy if this is to be the case? IMO, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is largely relevant because there are hundreds of articles like this documenting similiar attacks. Either delete all of them then. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy, it is called WP:NOTNEWS, there is no indication that this event, as tragic as it is for those involved, is of any lasting significance, it is, as an old Fleet Street saying, a classic example of "today's news tomorrow's chip wrapping". And like Ginsengbomb show me the third and fourth day coverage of this and I can be persuaded to withdraw the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been a few bombings in Baghdad this year. Perhaps articles on these instances should be merged into a [[List of attacks in Baghdad in 2010]] or something similar? Just throwing ideas out there. Or maybe List of suicide bombings in Iraq in 2010 could be expanded to include a brief summary of each incident, including this one (although, I am aware it was not a suicide bombing—perhaps rename the article)? Nightw 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misapplication of NOTNEWS policy. Clearly not the "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," which NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a WP:CONS that individual acts of terrorism that gain wide and even international news coverage are notable. WP:EVENT was written to separate this from routine things like traffic accidents, that are WP:NEWS and that get minor coverage only in local newspapers.AMuseo (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People have to read what the guidelines says, not just the titles of the guidelines. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes clear that while not fine as a sole reason, it is fine as one of more than one reason to bolster an argument -- as here, where there are many refs reflecting notability. Same with NOTNEWS. Those referring to it would appear not to have read the guideline. The examples given of what is not the news of far, far lesser in significance than is this event. Also, national or global reporting are indicia of notability, and we have those here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct you, actually NOTNEWS is a Policy, not guideline (see below). Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I can understand the immediate reaction of people who want to apply the NOTNEWS guideline, that is a misapplication and abundant precedents exist to attest to this fact. __meco (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, NOTNEWS is a Policy, not guideline and it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." if you are claiming it does not apply then please demonstrate how this attack is of "enduring notability", because absent that, this belongs in wikinews and not wikipedia. Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to do is what I already did, refer to Wikipedia's longstanding consensus to keep this type of articles. __meco (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think these attacks, horrifying though they may be, will have any lasting notability as we define it here on Wikipedia - and an AFD months from now would, I think, concur with that analysis and delete this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says that we should not keep this article just because other similar articles exist, and it's right - those articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of this one. BUT, if there are precedents that this type of article is typically kept at AFD, because of the same or similar rationales, well - that's a reasonable argument. I concede that such precedent exists here, though I disagree with it - thus, keep, for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large terrorist event that passes WP:EVENT (which is the relevant policy here). I have merged one of the articles into the other so it is a lot clearer :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW WP:EVENT is a guideline and not a policy. Codf1977 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was early in the morning ;). You make a good point below so switching to Delete on your rationale. --'Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I'm getting pretty sick of people trying to censor information on military/terrorist attacks out of Wikipaedia - these are notable events that will frequently be the subject of research. BlueRobe (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attempt at any form of censorship, here, there is no indication of any lasting notability to this event, all the ref's cited on the artical are from the day of the attack so absent anything to demonstrate "enduring notability" such as third or fourth day reporting on this, then it fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy and should be deleted. As I have said above, if it can be demonstrated that such coverage exists, happy to reconsider and withdraw my nom.Codf1977 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be WP:BIAS at work in attempts to delete articles about terrorist attacks in Iraq, when articles about terror attacks and attempted attacks in The United States and Britain are not deleted. See, for example, 2010 Newry car bombing.AMuseo (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. That article has the same problems as this. Just no one has got to it yet. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[16] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[17]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[18] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [19] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the Policy here is very clear - WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" so as above, please show that this is the case. Codf1977 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have your carefully read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I ask because looking to see what other articles exist and thereby demonstrate the actual standard of notability in use is WP policy. “In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” AMuseo (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMuseo, I'd ask you to strike or clarify those specific accusations of bias as I find it a personal attack. Each article, for me, is considered on its merits. You pointed me at another article with similar problems and I have prodded it with the same rationale. As Codf1977 is saying; the aim for articles such as these is to prove the enduring notability of the event - which I do not think can be done. Bombs blew up and killed people - it's, sadly, not an extraordinary or enduring event. The right place for this material is in some sort of article about 2010 terrorist events in Iraq. The event you describe simply does not appear to have widespread national or international impact. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, in company with most of the editors who have commented above, that you are misapplying standards of enduring notability and asseritons of Not News to an article that should be judged according to Wikipedia:Notability (events) and that is notable.AMuseo (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not criticizing you as an individual. I was criticizing what I see as a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion. My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East not proposed for deletion, including some very minor plots and incidents. Why pick on Newry, let us look also at the Los Angeles Times bombing, 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot, 1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple,

2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. I could go on. What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not.AMuseo (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it was directed at me, in part. When the reality is I came to this article quite randomly. Thanks for the above articles, I will try to go through them over the next couple of days. It is worth pointing out that NOTNEWS is the policy and so trumps notability :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship Society of Notre Dame

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

Subject is a typical undergraduate student organization. The references are comprised of local and student newspapers, failing notability per WP:ORG. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facebook-like page, looks like a lot of copypaste boosterism, no encyclopedic content. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plainly non-notable, per WP:ORG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per others Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per above—Chris!_c/t 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, lacks reliable sources. I was going to say merge to University of Notre Dame, but that page does not appear to have a section on student activities. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per reasonable suggestions that something else can be done besides deletion. The issue of merging, renaming, rewriting, or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional law firms

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

Another unsourced list of questionable notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no basis on which this particular list would be deemed notable. Per nom, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fulfil any of the purposes of lists. It doesn't serve any navigational purpose since the articles linked have very little in common, it doesn't provide a useful information resource and there don't appear to be many sources discussing fictional law firms (as opposed to simply describing something as a fictional law firm). Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to write about the perception of lawyers in fiction a better place to do that would be in legal drama or another related article. Hut 8.5 16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the material that I have added addresses the perception of law firms in fiction, and not of lawyers generally (although there is plenty to be written on that). Law firms are a different creature. While more than half of attorneys in private practice are now affiliated with multi-lawyer firms, the remainder are still solo practitioners (granting that most solo practitioners are still in their own "firm"), and of course that excludes all of the lawyers who work for the government or are in-house in corporations. Law firms are also more than lawyers. They are businesses, with secretaries, paralegals, accountants, gofers, and sometimes even HR departments, IT departmetns, in-house graphics, and marketing people. Based on my personal experience, one of the major affronts to reality exhibited by fictional depictions of law firms is how understaffed they are with non-lawyers. bd2412 T 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Perfectly legitimate and useful list, helpful to anyone trying to recall any fictional firm. bd2412 T 13:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization, loosely associated topics, WP:NOTDIR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- without sources that establish the notability of the topic, we cannot justify an article on it. Reyk _YO! 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a reference to a source earlier today. That source exemplifies how the existence and conduct of law firms is a recurring theme in legal fiction, so with a little bit of patience, that information can be developed nicely. bd2412 T 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have added additional sources demonstrating the notability and range of study of this exact topic. bd2412 T 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have further expanded the article with reference to the sources added, and have laid out a standard of notability. I would respectfully request that this AfD nomination be withdrawn or deferred pending additional work on the article. bd2412 T 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ the new lead into Legal drama, delete the list for listing unconnected trivia. Category:Fictional law firms can continue listing those law firms that have an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not finished reowrking this article, but I can assure you that not all fictional law firms are found in dramas, and there is sufficient coverage of firms in other genres to support keeping this separate. bd2412 T 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Changed to keep and rename to Law firms in fiction. This is a very different article now from the originally AfDed article. Merging is still an option, but discussion for that should take place on the talk page, not here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sgeureka. The information that was added recently is interesting and useful, but we are better served if said information is added to the Legal drama article. None of that information addresses the problem of the triviality of the list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can not just "add" the information to a different article while deleting the original content from this one. This destroys the edit history, in violation of the GFDL. bd2412 T 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have continued adding information with citations. The article is now completely different from that which was originally nominated. Does anyone object to keeping the article as it is currently composed? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your content would be better in an article on Lawyers in fiction (or even Law firms in fiction). Any page at this title is going to have to be focused on the list, which is unencyclopedic. Hut 8.5 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article to a title that more accurately describes the current content is definitely a viable option. Lawyers in fiction would be too broad (and would exclude much of what is actually goes on in law firms); Law firms in fiction would be appropriate to the direction in which the content is developing. bd2412 T 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an unencyclopedic cross-characterization, perfectly suitable list. If there's a strong desire to do so, every entry can be sourced from primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Move to Law firms in fiction and remove the sections that are lists of fictional law firms. The information about how law firms are portrayed in fiction is encyclopedic. The list of specific instances of fictional law firms is trivia. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , possible with the title change Karnacs just suggested. The lists, however, belong as part of the article. Important plot elements in notable fiction is appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting debate to obtain additional views following substantial rewrite.

Keep Legal dramas are quite common and this article provides a good survey of this notable field which serves as an index where we have separate articles such as Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Our editing policy requires that we keep this good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Baptist Church

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

Non-notable church TM 05:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Palestinian Christians. The article is referenced, it is possible to find out more. I can see no benefit in deleting verifiable information about religion in this particular region. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the only Protestant Christian church in the Gaza Strip that we have an article about. And as per Vejvančický, there are sufficient sources to warrant inclusion. — C M B J 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - yes, it's the only Protestant church in Gaza that we have an article about, but that =/= notable. Roscelese (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that does not prove notability...but it does strongly suggest that we should exercise greater care than usual. All-in-all, it appears that this church has received continued coverage over 3 years time; it was captured by the Palestinian Authority in 2007, damaged by Israeli air strikes in 2009, and its leaders have been the subject of multiple assassination attempts, at least one of which was successful. The building itself is also six stories tall and half a century old, which is a considerable feat for the region. — C M B J 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge per above thoughts. Arguments to keep above read to me like "sure, it's not notable...but...". One can list any number of qualifiers beyond "it's not notable" to attempt to argue for inclusion, but I tend to get stuck at the "it's not notable" part. It's not Wikipedia's place, nor is it AfD's place, to confer notability on a subject. Notability exists, or it doesn't. In this case, it appears that the latter is more accurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that's a misquotation at best--no such fallacious argument was ever expressed or intended. Rather than debate, I'll just go ahead and incorporate sources into the article. — C M B J 07:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- wasn't my intent to quote, let alone misquote, but I can definitely see how you might have thought that was my intent. Sorry about that! Either way, I'll look for your sources. It sounds like an interesting topic, so I'd love to see reason to include it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source you just added is not non-trivial coverage of the subject of this article. It's non-trivial coverage of the victim of a kidnapping and murder. The victim happens to have been "one of Gaza Baptist Church's leaders." I, and anybody reviewing this (I should hope), would be looking for non-trivial coverage of the actual subject, not non-trivial coverage of persons related to the subject. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source actually goes into very lengthy detail about Massad and the circumstances surrounding the church, not just Ayyad's murder. It is non-trivial coverage of the primary subject by any reasonable definition. But anyways, hold your horses; I'm not done. — C M B J 08:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses held! I stand by my earlier assessment of the article, but others might deem it coverage of the subject, in this case. Either way, and again, I think it's a damn interesting topic, so I hold my horses with something like anticipation in this case :). Best case scenario for any AfD is the addition of fine sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done for the night. I need some sleep. — C M B J 10:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, because you did a sterling job of looking for and adding sourcing, but I still see a lack of reliable sources that focus on this particular topic. Reliable sourcing that mentions this topic in relation to the focus of a given article doesn't pass muster. That said, this is a bit of a close call. I wouldn't be surprised to see this ultimately judged Keep, but I am very hesitant to vote Keep myself. I look for multiple, reliable sources contributing non-trivial coverage on a given topic. I don't see it here. I see a lot of coverage of this particular topic, but the vast majority of it is incidental in nature, and not directly concerned with the topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the lines between trivial and non-trivial are a lot less blurry than what we see here. But seeing as the available material is of acceptable quality and goes into a reasonable level of detail, I'm confident in my position within the boundaries set forth by WP:N as contextually interpreted with WP:IAR taken into consideration. Nonetheless, I respect your position and discipline. — C M B J 02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This note represents nothing new to add to the discussion in any meaningful way other than to acknowledge that the above was some of the most reasonable, non-argumentative, productive debate and response I've ever had with someone adamantly voicing an opposing opinion in an AfD debate. I stand by my opinions, but I can see that consensus is clearly going in the opposite direction and, frankly, my vote above perhaps ought to be a weak delete, rather than a firm one (not that that makes much of a difference). This is hardly a case where the subject is devoid of reliable sourcing. It's a case of how one interprets "non-trivial," really, and I'm comfortable with seeing my own interpretation apparently run counter to consensus, in this case. Regardless, props to CMBJ for not getting rankled by my antagonistic view! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AMuseo (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced your comment with the standard delsort notification. Hope you don't mind, AMuseo. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This church has received very wide coverage in international sources. If that's not WP:Notable, what is?AMuseo (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom simultaneously started an AFD on Christian bookstore, Gaza.AMuseo (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple news stories over a 10-year period indicates notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide range of sources. Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the Dallas Baptist news is not a netural news source, neither is Christianity Today or any other vowedly conservative evangelical christian news source. What are we left with? All of the other sources don't cover the Church in detail, thus why a passing mention in an article about something else is not a claim to notability. It still fails WP:GNG.--TM 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom appears to labor under the misapprehension that a news source needs to be neutral to be reliable. It does not. Many political journals both right (The National Interest) and left (The New Republic, The New York Review of Books) of center and many newspapers both right The Wall Street Journal and left The Guardian of center are considered WP:RS (reliable sources) because there news pages are generally accurate as to the facts, although their political slant may lead the ones on the right and the left to cover different stories. The same applies to Christian sources like Christianity Today AMuseo (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Again, this establishment is connected with a series of violent events which may be considered notable, and the coverage focuses on those events. The establishment is not notable in and of itself. Being six stories tall as evidence of notability? Come on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the architecture and design of a church building typically is a focal point in our articles. In fact, some of them go into vivid detail. Just look at Stanford Memorial Church. — C M B J 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the article under discussion here, does not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 sums my point up with more directness and economy of language than I can apparently offer. In short: agreed! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell this is another in a series of Big Bad Muslims articles... At best, this is news not history. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated use of a place of worship as an observation post by both belligerents in a civil war is not history? A governmental advisory that a religious leader must seek safe harbor in a foreign nation is not history? The establishment of the first Protestant church in a predominantly Sunni region is not history? Three arsons, three shootings, and an airstrike are not history? A religious congregation losing 80 percent of its membership due to violence is not history? At what point then, may I ask, do you propose that we define a series of events as being history? — C M B J 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Palestinian Christians. No sufficiently independent sources provide sufficiently in depth coverage of this Church. Information would sit happily at proposed merge target. Bigger digger (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me eccentric, but I do regard the BBC, the Associated Press, MSNBC, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post as independent. Although the BBC is government funded, unlike the press in Gaza, it is not government controlled. That is part of the tragedy of Gaza. More to the point, it is not required that sources be independent but, rather, that they be reliable, which Christianity Today and many other Christian news sources are.AMuseo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them are interested in the Church as a building or organisation Where's the analysis of its history and origins? Where's the in-depth coverage? The BBC source is about a pastor, the MSNBC & Haaretz (via AP) and the JP sources are about the murder of Rami Ayyad. This information is all suitable for the Palestinian Christians article, but citing every source that merely mentions "Gaza Baptist Church" is not, for me, the way to show notability. Bigger digger (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes explicit claim of notability and backs that up with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sources include: BBC, MSNBC, Christianity Today, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. How is this church not notable? VictorianMutant (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you note say more about the church than the fact the someone worked there. They do not provide any information about the Church at all. To reverse your question: how is this Church notable? Bigger digger (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Today (cite 5) goes into detail about the pastor of the church, how the church has been shelled four times by Israeli mortars, and the church's new six story building which has the only Christian library in Gaza and will soon have a breast screening clinic. If this were a 6 story church in the United States there wouldn't even be an AfD because of notability, even without this church's recent history, related violence, and uniqueness. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:VictorianMutant is correct. The proposed deletion of this church is an example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias; "If this were a 6 story church in the United States there wouldn't even be an AfD because of notability, even without this church's recent history, related violence, and uniqueness"AMuseo (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that you accuse me of systemic bias. I've created hundreds of articles about places in the world you have never heard of nor ever bothered to write about. Israel-Palestine is one of the most written about countries in the world on Wikipedia. Nice strawman. What this really is about is a consistent POV in the articles written by certain anti-Palestinian articles who in fact claim to be fighting systemic bias.--TM 15:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. uber-unique church is clearly notable as attested by its coverage in multitude of sources, some of which are listed in the article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only a very unique church, but it has received very significant coverage from reliable sources spanning a long period of time, thus easily passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Smartse (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A church that is well-reported to have suffered considerable difficulties. I do not know all the sources, but it is well reported on. Merger to a general article on Palestinian Christians should not be an object, since the majority of them are (1) Orthodox (of various denominations) and (2) in the West Bank. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That sounds like a major oversight in the Palestinian Christians article that would therefore be better balanced by merging this information. At the moment the lead still shows Gaza Baptist Church is not really about a Church, but about the difficulties Christians in Gaza face. Bigger digger (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources establish notability, contrary to the nom's unsubstantiated assertion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many reliable sources - it is notable per WP:GNG. Specifically, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". Churches mentioned by reliable sources are generally notable, and the attacks against the church make it even more notable. The church has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the church itself. Marokwitz (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 03:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Eye

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

Distribution label, minor subsidiary, non-notable and doesn't appear to be an original distributor of any films. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Madman Entertainment. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no reason to consider this particular topic notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable topic with no sources except one external link. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian bookstore, Gaza

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

Bookstore is not notable. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. All but one of the sources is openly known to support Israel and/or Zionism. TM 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending clarification from nom how NOTNEWS applies to an article that covers numerous different incidents throughout a 12 year span and why articles with sources "that support Israel" should be deleted.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one mainstream source which is cited in the article and its focus is the death of the owner, not the bookstore itself. All of the others are openly sympathetic to Israel and/or conservative Christian evangelism and thus cannot be considered to be unbiased given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--TM 04:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because it appears that "you are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks." Can you please provide a coherent explanation how NOTNEWS applies to an article that covers numerous different incidents throughout a 12 year span and why articles with sources "that support Israel" should be deleted. thanks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Palestinian_Christians#Recent_history. Bookshop fails WP:GNG, through lack of significant in depth coverage. Death of owner would fail WP:BLP1E, but this would all be a good addition to my proposed target. Bigger digger (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Of course information about this church and a link should be added to Palestinian_Christians#Recent_history. But the fact that an article exists on Christianity in Gaza is hardly an argument for deleting the article on this church.AMuseo (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this is (or was) a bookstore, not a church. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is apparently notable as a Christian book store, although, per my comment below I don't think it shows this notability yet. Bigger digger (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions I have added this discussion to the Christianity and terrorism related deletion lists.AMuseo (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This bookstore has received very wide coverage in international sources over a period of many years. If that's not WP:Notable, what is?AMuseo (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has multiple reliable sources published over a wide range of time. Religious sources can be reliable; what's more, sources with a political point of view can be reliable. Do you propose getting rid of everything from articles about US presidential politics that depends on the New York Times, since it always endorses a candidate? Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, this has information produced by Israel's most important newspaper and information produced by the Associated Press that appears in the same newspaper; these are two different mainstream sources alone. Or do you propose that Israeli sources are never reliable on matters related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom simultaneously started an AFD on Gaza Baptist Church.AMuseo (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears my m&r suggestion is not popular. Could someone list here the sources that show notability? All I can see are items on a gentleman who was killed with a "Oh, this is where he worked" mention, and some Christian news-sources that are borderline non-trivial mentions and which might not be independent enough. Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per Bigger digger. The bookstore is not notable in and of itself. Its association with a prolonged series of violent incidents and a murder (which may themselves be notable if taken together) does not confer notability on it. Those events are also currently being used in an attempt to "confer notability" on another building/organization - exactly how many different buildings can magically achieve notability due to their connection with these events? And in that article, the murdered individual is listed as a "church leader", not primarily as a bookseller. If he had also coached a non-notable local football team, would that football team also achieve notability just by its association with these events? It's ridiculous. If he worked as a clothing store salesmen and the militants kidnapped him from his clothing store, would the clothing store then merit its own Wikipedia article? As per Namiba, the "multiple reliable sources" in this case are covering the violent events, not the bookstore. Thus any article should cover the events, not the store. The bookstore is no longer operational and is very unlikely to become operational again. It is not the Library of Alexandria or a similar facility that would have enduring historical significance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV trojan horse. Here's the money line: The Islamization of Gaza under Hamas has put increasing pressure on the tiny Christian minority. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When pressure on a minority community, such as the Christians of Gaza, escalates to the point of bombings of the community's bookstore and murder of the bookstore owner, it has become notable. At least according to Christianity Today, the Associated Press, The New York Sun, The Independent and many other reliable news sources....

Note - above unsigned comment was added by Amuseo.

Yes that may be the case, but in that case you should be writing about that pressure on the minority community, not about a non-notable bookstore (and church, and so on) as a "Trojan Horse" method of promoting your concerns about that pressure into DYK and other places. The press coverage is on the events, the violence, the bombing, the pressure; it is not press coverage about a bookstore, and it does not thereby confer notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources make clear that the bookstore is WP:Notable. It obtained its notability in part because Islamist thugs took the trouble to repeatedly attack it.AMuseo (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamist thugs"?!? POV, anyone??? Carrite (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My POV is that beating and murdering bookstore owners is bad. Reliable sources describe the perpetrators as Islamists. Thug is what we call the murderous bad guys who beat up, stab and murder innocent shopkeepers.AMuseo (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alanohn. Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the three keeps above, and as per my previous comment, where is the significant coverage as required by WP:GNG? The reliability of the sources themselves is not really in doubt, but they singularly fail to address the bookshop, they are reporting on the murder of its manager. This article would be better off being about him, but that would be a WP:BLP1E violation, and I therefore find the "trojan horse" arguments compelling. Please dismiss my argument by providing links to one or two sources that provide significant coverage. This would also persuade me that these !votes aren't slightly stealthy WP:ILIKEIT. Bigger digger (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The events regarding this bookstore also seem to be covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Gaza#Position_of_Christians citing the same sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is; this is entirely normal. In a single sentence "Islamist militants have also attacked Christian institutions; in 200t the manager of Gaza's only Christian bookstore was kidnapped, beaten, stabbed and shot to death by militant Islamists. The Christian bookstore has not reopened." You write an article about a church, say, St. Ninian's Church, Tynet; then you put a brief mention of that church in an article about a broader phenomenon of which it is an example Clandestine church. Like St. Martin's Church, Biberach which I linked to Simultaneum. Or look at Eliot School rebellion which I created and linked to a new sentence in History of Catholic education in the United States. This is the normal way articles work on Wikipedia. Except in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Where it seems to me that editors who have little more to offer than Wikipedia:I just don't like it manufacture arguments such "this bookstore also seem to be covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Gaza#Position_of_Christians citing the same sources." Or argue that notability requires "enduring historical significance" on the level of the Great Library of Alexandria.AMuseo (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bookstore can be not notable, but a christian bookstore in Gaza is notable.User:Lucifero4
Keep per Lucifero4, Chesdovi (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a notable case of Palestinian Muslim persecution of Christians. The alternative might be to convert the article to one on its martyred manager, but keeping it seems better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to take your opinion as unbiased when you refer to someone as "martyred".--TM 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to follow our WP:NPA rules. The manager can be considered to be a "martyr" because he died, while perhaps not purposefully, for the cause of having Christians be more accepted in the area and to stop the violence. Silver seren^C 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would all be fine, except this is an article apparently about a book shop, which somewhat reduces the strength of this !vote, arguing it should be kept for WP:BLP1E reasons. If the !voter believes there is a wider issue of the persecution of Christains, then an article about a book shop is clearly the wrong article to describe that. Bigger digger (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Bigger digger makes a very compelling argument that seemingly none of the "keepers" are able to address: why is this bookstore notable (as a bookstore), rather than the events or the owner which are actually the focus of the source coverage? Question: Can we actually write an article on the bookstore itself (as a bookstore, covered in multiple reliable sources)? Answer: no. I dare suggest the pile-on "keeps" without explanation should be discounted by the closing admin. Zunaid 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Store is notable because of the controversy about its sale of Christian Bibles; multiple news stories cited. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources establish notability. Only policy based argument for deletion so far was WP:NOTNEWS, but a bookstore is an institution, not a news item, obviously. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - funny then that all of the sources are news items, and none of them are about the bookshop as their primary focus... Bigger digger (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - to Palestinian Christians. All but one of the sources are contemporary news stories, and the one that isn't only mentions the store in passing, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also endorse comments above by Zunaid. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend and Lucifero4 among others. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with leave to recreate if someone finds some blue links to populate it with. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fappani

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

I'm all in favour of dab pages, but this one leads nowhere. Literally - every link on the page is a redlink. If it was about the origins of the surname, then it might make sense, but I don't see that there's much point in this page, certainly not in its present form. Grutness...wha? 04:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Grutness. I've always had an aversion to Deleting WP articles, especially as deletion is frequently used as a means of censorship or simple pettiness. But, as you point out, this pointless article is WP:RoadToNowhere. I support its deletion. BlueRobe (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only live link was an article which was deleted some time ago. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Fappani-cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing to disambiguate. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CodeCharge Studio

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

As a notability tag was removed by someone involved with this software's development, I am bringing this directly to AfD. Software with no indication of notability. GNews returns truckloads of press releases but little else, GBooks returns trivial mentions, and GScholar more trivial mentions. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Blanchardb's opinion of the GScholar mentions as "trivial." My GScholar search shows that the CodeCharge Studio tool was used for developing projects which led to the scholarly articles by independent researchers. See [20] and [21]. There are other references to IEEE journals which I don't have open access to at home. See [22]. I will look at these at work. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC). Update: I looked at the IEEE article at work. It includes a discussion of four web development tools (including CodeCharge Studio) and their features. The pros and cons of each tool are discussed thoroughly, and the authors give suggestions for improvement in future tools. (This isn't just a brief tabulation of features.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, that the there is nothing that demonstrates significant coverage by independent and reliable sources, I am afraid that HowardBGolden has it wrong those mentions and quotes are not realy significant enough to pass the WP:GNG test. Codf1977 (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I claim that the sources are both independent and reliable. Do you disagree? If so, please explain. If the mentions and quotes aren't significant according to your understanding of WP:GNG, please explain what they lack. Have you looked at the IEEE article? If not, what is insufficient about my description of it? — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable sources which establish notability. The one source in the article is a link to release notes for the software. The two sources provided above are: (1) a research paper which mentions CodeCharge Studio exactly once (which only proves existence, not notability), and (2) a report on a college student's internship at Fermilab (clearly not a reliable source). I can't comment on the IEEE source, as it is behind a paywall. However, even if the IEEE source is a reliable source which establishes the notability of CodeCharge Studio, then that is only one source. WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Claiming notability for this software appears to be a stretch. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't any of the news or book results notable? Dream Focus 04:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It really isn't hard to find third party reviews of this software. The company's website provides links to over a dozen third-party reviews here from sources like InfoWorld [23], PHP Architect [24], and Intranet Journal [25]. The article just needs some love is all. —CodeHydro 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 7 third party sources. The article still needs some clean up, but the mess is not bad enough to be worth deleting. —CodeHydro 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added even more sources, slightly expanded, and did some reorganization and cleanup. Anybody whose vote above was to delete really ought to reconsider based on the latest version, which have plenty of sources that clearly satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion despite the need for more cleanup. —CodeHydro 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be partially rewritten to comply with NPOV, however overall the article looks fine. The subject is notable based on the sources provided. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree the article needs to be partially rewritten to comply with NPOV, but the topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Source used for prior delete request was incomplete. It cited dissolution in 2003, and no further activity at the secretary of state. Added Secretary of state reference indicating Yes Software INC, a Nevada Corp is current as of the end of 2017. All filings have been made biannually.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Engine That Could (2012 film)

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

This rumor seems to trace its origin back to a fansite, Disnology.com. The fansite article was picked up by the examiner in www dot examiner dot com/brenda-song-in-national/brenda-song-to-star-little-engine-that-could-with-jamie-lee-curtis and from there to other fansites. That's it. No one has even made up an IMDB entry for this yet. Certainly doesn't pass WP:NFF. —Kww(talk) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible hoax. And what is with people and trivia sections? Do they think we're Uncle John's Bathroom Reader? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films and it is pure speculation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Frecon

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established by reputable third party sources. Speedy Delete citing G4 removed by non-creating editor. Previous AfD decision was delete. Quartermaster (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An identical article, Albert Frazzle (same artist, apparently) has just been tagged for speedy delete. In any case, the result of this AfD should be related to the eventual disposition of that article. If the pattern is true to form, a non-creating editor will probably remove the CSD tag on Messr. Frazzle. Just an administrative heads-up. If they both (or one?) make it through AfD, a redirect will be in order. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Identical article closed within the past 24 hours at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Frecon. Same goes for Albert Frazzle and any redirects. Location (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sockpuppet activity going on with these two articles by users Yukrios, Yuko16, and Xivia. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AFD withdrawn (keep). When nominated, the article was in no shape to be kept as a usable article, with no verifiable sources and little assertion of notability. However, the article has since been improved and now includes reliable sources, the contents of which go some way to asserting notability. Therefore, I have decided to withdraw the nomination as nothing will be gained from deleting this article at this point. No prejudice against relisting in future if others feel the article still doesn't meet notability guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milton (game)

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

PROD contested. NN game with no sources. Considered speedy nom for promotional but decided to AFD instead. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added source (US Patent), added statement regarding notability of game (first electronic talking game that allowed two players to play against each other), removed reference to collectible/rarity status of game so as not to appear promotional OhRatts —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a thing, which really shocks me. Yes it's old, but there should be something in a book. Best I can find are passing references. This isn't a delete !vote as I really do find it hard to believe there are no sources, but I certainly can't suggest keeping at this point. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there are three complications involved in finding sources for this. First, it's hard to find sources for things oriented to children since such things are often below the radar of the (adult) folks who review things. Second, when such an item probably reached its peak of popularity before the internet-era such as this. Third and most difficult is the fact that this game's name is so simple and similar to the brand name, making an enormous number of false positives that literally bury any internet sources that exist.

Nonetheless, I have found a source that strongly suggests that this game was rather technologically innovative and popular in its time in two different Popular Mechanics [26] and [27]. There also a rather lengthly article, titled "Squeezing Milton's voice into memory," from Electronics about the technology in this game. We can only see in snippet view, but it's possible to read the whole thing if you're patient with the snippet system (learned quite a few tricks as an rescuer). Here are the first four consecutive snippet pieces if anybody cares to read: [28] [29] [30] [31]. I'll quote some of that below:

"To encode the speech in the Milton game, the waveforms were sampled and the samples digitized. Then to minimize the problem of synthesizing fluent speech, segments of speech that would occur in the game in only one context—as in a question, for example— were sampled in that context. Those occurring in more than one context were sampled in that context. Those occurring in more than one context were sampled in isolation. Great care was taken to arrange the rhythm and intonation of the game's vocabulary, so that segments of speech occurring in different contexts would sound natural in every instance. Proper intonation and rhythm are critical for making..."

I'd include more, but that'd tread onto the copyright. Either way, there is enough information to write an encyclopedic article. After I read the rest of the article, I'll add a "Technology" section soon. —CodeHydro 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Popular Mechanics mention proves notability. Dream Focus 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have reorganized and wikified this article and used the sources I found (as noted above) to write most of the "Voice and technology" section starting with "At the time, electronics capable of speech were a novelty..." There's still some work to be done, but I think this first round of edits has demonstrated that we can make this encyclopedic and worth keeping. I'd also like to point out that this is the very first (and only) article created by User:OhRatts, so WP:DONTBITE. —CodeHydro 23:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an unfair accusation of bad faith. It didn't matter who wrote it, the article as it was, as Hobit said, was not conducive to "keeping at (that) point". I'd have PRODded/AFD'd it either way. That said, enough work has been done on the article to convince me the article should be kept and I am withdrawing the AFD. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really nice job CodeHydro. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from article's primary author) Just wanted to say thank you to CodeHydro for the great editing and additional sources and to everyone else for the support! OhRatts (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eid ul-Fitr. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eidi

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

Article resembles a sub-stub. At best it should be moved to Wiktionary but I don't think there is enough material. *Kat* (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eid ul-Fitr, where the gifts are mentioned in the "General rituals" section and in several of the "Practices by country" subsections. There doesn't seem much else to say about the topic. Deor (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Roscelese (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. BlueRobe (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kento Nagayama

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

Unsourced BLP. Previous prod was removed without sourcing. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per apparently meeting WP:ENT and seek input from Japanese-language-reading Wikipedians. An expectation for English language sources for a non-Western actor is both unrealistic and not what Wikipedia is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP who fails the notability guidelines. Also, this is an English encyclopedia. Japanese sources shouldn't be used. Nolelover 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.700 Hubel Express

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/.700 Hubel Express

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

I have been doing quite a bit if research and have come to some conclusions.

This cartridge article is being set up to provide legitimacy by Ed Hubel. It is my belief that Ed Hubel and Hubel458 are one and the same person. The 700 Hubel is a project undertaken by Ed. I am afraid that this cartridge article is to become a self-promontory site for Ed Hubel and his project and his future projects. For a lack of good advertising site or other reasons such as the lack of interest, Ed seems to believe that the Wiki is the bus to hitch a ride on to fame as a sort of maven cartridge developer. This is not what the Wiki is supposed to be. This sort of action undermines the credibility of the firearms project.

I have made a telephone call, I do not believe the that Ed Hubel is a credible or creditable source of information regarding the cartridge. Self-proclaimed claims regarding cartridge capability is being given credibility which was lacking elsewhere by this article. It was Ed Hubel who requested this article, and as a response, it was Ed Hubel who wrote this article.

This article should be killed and killed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 8 September 2010

Note: the following comment was copied and pasted from a second AfD discussion created on this same article by a user who was likely unaware of this AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable - unable to find information anywhere outside of blogs. Probably it's just too early - we should wait until it becomes notable. We can't seem to substantiate any reliable info without WP:OR issues. I made a good-faith effort to assist the new editor in creating an article properly, but we have been unable to find sources to establish notability and indeed have found that some of the sources given have been proven not to contain the info claimed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. And thanks to Kuyabribri for the assist in cleanup up the nomination mess. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's likely a COI. Do the listed references, most of which appear to be offline, actually cover the ammunition in question here? I've certainly never heard of it, but I'm not a hunter--especially not of anything that would need a .700! COI is bad, but it can be cleaned up. Failing to have reliable source coverage is an essentially uncorrectable issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sources Many of the sources listed are not being used to establish notability, but rather to support some statement not solely related to the cartridge in question. Only 3 of the sources given are alleged to mention the cartridge directly -

Weighman, Zac (November–December 2009). "Hubel Cartridges". The International Ammunition Journal. 470: 10–11. - unable to verify.
~~Bussard, Michael (2008). Ammo Encyclopedia. Blue Book Publications. p. 567 of 791. ISBN 978-1886768796.~~ failed verification - DeusImperator bought the book and the ref wasn't in it.
Templar, Stephen W (2008). Rexgun. Morgan Templar. p. 91 of 106. ISBN 978-0615224138. is a fluff "what if?" book that has trivial mention.

so I don't think we have notability established. The only sources I can find don't pass WP:RS. And we do have a definite WP:COI issue with the editor who is the cartridge creator and is having some troubles understanding how wikipedia works. He's made some progress but I don't think this article meets muster. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but move the article to users pages as AliveFreeHappy has indicated elsewhere. I do not believe that Mr. Hubel knows how to move the page. I have provided some reasoning as to why it should be removed for the moment on the articles talk pages in brief both should be deleted for the following reasons:

1) Conflict of Interest 2) Speculative information 3) No reliable information in print or other media available on the subject 4) Article set up for the purpose of drawing attention to product

The Ammo Encyclopedia has no information regarding the Hubel cartridges it merely lists the cartridge in a list among many others. It is not enven in the index of cartridges. I had indicated earlier to (talk) that it did not exist in that book (I had been going through the index of all entries).
The TRex book is end to end speculative about shot placement on dinosaurs. So if if if there were dinosaurs somewhere you might use a Hubel to shoot it in such and such a place. That is the extent of the information in the book. Personally, listing that book is too funny and a very quick way to loosing credibility. It is supposed to be a funny what if book in the end, and I believe that was what the author was aiming for anyway.
The IAJ is the only authoritative source. However that too fails to provide information. All that it provides is that Mr. Hubel was designer the cartridge. It is a cartridge collector's bi-monthly journal.

DeusImperator (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having read through the efforts of DeusImperator and AliveFreeHappy at the talk page, and noted that the included refs do not cite facts about the cartridge, I am happy that this particular piece of ammunition isn't notable. Bigger digger (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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