Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 26

< 25 March	27 March >

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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BC548

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

Contested PROD. Parts catalog entry, no referenced assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog or transistor substitution guide Wtshymanski (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of those transistors that is sufficiently widely used, and representative of its task, that it achieves notability for our purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, commonly used transistor, demonstrated by 120,000 sites aparrently carrying its datasheet ([1]). These aparrently indiscriminate nominations en masse for notable electronic parts are becoming disruptive. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When I have a moment from answering AfDs, is this best at RFC (waste of time) or ANI? A project-based list of "Transistors we really do care an individual damn about" would be useful (and let's indeed delete those outside this), but this is just AfD for the sake of it. If the articles are poor, then either improve them, or encourage others to improve them, but this scatter-gun use of AfD just wastes the efforts of the people who ought to be doing more useful work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Only one contributor has made as many as 10 edits to the article. No-one is working on it in any substantial way, and no-one has addressed the lack of references or notability for the 2 years the article has existed. If it gets deleted now, someone can always recreate if if they find some good references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTIMELIMIT is relevant here. It is also a poor show (ie against policy) that it was necessary for the prod to be removed twice by two different editors before the mass-deletionists gave up on the prod and came here. SpinningSpark 02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my mistake. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is clearly informative in an encyclopaedic sense, it goes way beyond the usual transistor data sheet information - in fact, only the final sentence of the "specifications" section could be said to be purely data sheet information: a tiny portion of this 5000 byte article. I would say though, that the article discussion strays substantially outside of its title. SpinningSpark 02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the text in this article isn't even about this device - it's about other devices, some of which are germanium transistors. The text that is specifically about this device is a recitation of specifications from an unreferenced specification sheet. There's nothing in this article that says who first made it, how many are/were sold each year, why this device was necessary, how important this device was to the semiconductor industry. --05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - WP only lists about the 10 most popular transistors of all time. This appears to be one of those; it appears in over 200 books, like this one that says it's what's "most often needed". Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list a book that gives non-trivial coverage of this important and valuable transistor. We have garage bands listed that have more historical information and context than this transistor. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is need for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can keep track of them all, there's only 12 left (one got deleted already). See the sortable table at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion or a duplicate on my user page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N3906

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

Contested nomination for PROD. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a renewal parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. There's no description of "who, what, when, where, why, how" that lifts this to an article status instead of cribbing from an unknown and unreferenced data sheet. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the 2N3906 appears in over 2000 books, including over 400 near the word "popular". Do some work instead of calling for its deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please find a book that tells us something other than "This popular transistor has thus-and-so properties"? How many are/were made each year? Who invented it? What companies still make it? WHy was it thought to be needed, what did it do better than competitive products at the time? I've yet to find a book that actually talks about these devices in any but the most superficial parts-list recital. If they are important to the semiconductor industry, surely there's someone out there who can show the importance? Otherwise, it's just another transistor. Important, valuable - but not notable in the Wikipedia sense of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is need for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If those who know about this sort of thing decide to merge similar ones together so be it. Otherwise, let it be. Every new transistor played some significant part in history, new things built, or things made cheaper or more powerful by constant improvements. Dream Focus 08:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. We need reliable sources that show the signficance of the contribution to history of this part. These are generic commodity parts made by many manufacturers and individually have little notability. What is notable, and ought to verifiable in the Wikipedia sense, is teh aggregate contribution low-cost silicon transistors made. That would be an article, a parts catalog tells us nothing about the significance. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Linux-powered devices

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

Okay, this is a complex one.

It doesn't have enough sourcing. Of course some of it is sourced, but still.
This seems more like something that would be a category due to its wide inclusion criteria (hence why this is so long). Given the fact that among other things, it will ultimately and redundantly list every Android phone model on Earth (since they all technically meet the inclusion criteria).
The idea of listing all products that run on a certain class of operating systems is unwieldy, in comparison to a better idea; making articles dealing with and providing encyclopedic information about these topics, like say Linux on mobile devices or Linux on embedded systems, or even Linux on desktop computers.
And one more thing, this is also the same reason why we don't have List of Windows-powered devices, cause that would get insane.

So, is this a valid excuse? ViperSnake151 Talk 23:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this fits into criteria for a list that is too broad or general WP:SALAT. Further, I don't believe that the list would provide any encyclopedic value even if categories and subcategories were added to the page. The list doesn't seem to have an informational purpose. Lord Arador (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Rilak (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this article violates policy directly, but Linux has become sufficiently pervasive to cease being a distinguishing factor. Three hundred million years ago (more or less), List of animals that breathe air might have been a good article, but not now. Ma^t_chups 03:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmanageable and indiscriminate list. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split up into the smaller, more manageable lists such as those suggested in point three above. The content is easily referenced, but it's way too broad a topic for one list. So basically it would turn the article into a "list of lists" as described in WP:SALAT, but the content would be subdivided into less free-wheeling topics. Steven Walling 02:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guntai political strategy

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

Article appears to be madeup and unsourced. Previous prod by another editor. Google only shows two article listings this one and another that references this article. Enfcer (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word "guntai" means "military" in Japanese, but the article doesn't even mention Japan. Perhaps this is a proposal for reorganizing the Japanese government, but it is hard to say. Because the article is so poorly written that the context can't be determined, and it is unreferenced, I conclude it should be deleted as original research. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't figure this one out. As far as I can tell it's either invented or so non-notable that it's mentioned nowhere else. Either way it qualifies for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It lacks greatly in context, but from what I can gather, it appears to be a proposed system of government. However, I can find no sources discussing such a system of government. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant hoax. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Crisis Snow Day

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

This article includes no references and Google says nothing about it. Baseball Watcher 23:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. The Diary of a Wimpy Kid series does exist, but this book doesn't. I will also remove the mention of this bogus title from the parent article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Crisis Snow Day is the 6th book of Diary of a Wimpy Kid". Really? Who says? I mean, it is not like all the other articles with speculative titles for forthcoming Wimpy Kid books turned out to be blatant hoaxes is it? Speedy delete.
Speedy delete - A Google search did not provide any sources for this book title so this is probably is a hoax. Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 03:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aylestone Park F.C.

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

This article is about a non-notable football club. The previous AfD resulted in the page being kept because of a seemingly non-existent clause in WP:FOOTYN (I've been around WikiProject Football for over 5 years and have heard nothing of any level 10 "cut-off point" for notability). The fact of the matter is that this club has never participated in a national league or cup competition and there are not enough independent sources to infer notability per the general notability guidelines. Big Dom 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club hasn't played above level 11 of the English football pyramid, and therefore isn't notable by current standards. Giant Snowman 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my bad, hadn't realised this team's league was once reformatted. Notability is not temporary - if it was once notable, then it still is. Giant Snowman 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But no guidelines or policies state anywhere that playing at level 10 infers notability. It just seems to be something a couple of you made up one day. Big Dom 07:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For current teams I understand its use because generally if a team gets to level 10 it means they qualify to play in the FA Cup, thus qualifying for an article according to guidelines anyway. In the past level 10 wasn't always the cut-off point for qualification (thus no Aylestone in the FA Cup). This is why I think the cut-off point should be playing in the FA Cup/FA Trophy/FA Vase (i.e. national cup competitions) instead. This case is particularly confusing for me as it's not exactly clear what level each league was at particular moments in time, between what time period was the Leicestershire Senior League level 10? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article to prevent arguments? Personally I think there should be a guideline specifically for the notability of english football teams to avoid ambiguity. Delusion23 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the NFOOTY guideline says that clubs that played in the FA Cup are notable, not clubs that are eligible to play. And I agree that we need some proof that the Leicestershire Senior League was a level 10 competition. Big Dom 11:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. But every club at level 10 this season has now had a season in the FA Cup (e.g. least 1 game in the FA Cup, even if it's the extra preliminary), which is why it's often seen as the cut-off point for current teams. Whether it should track back to any club that has ever played at level 10 is another matter entirely. It's much easier to check if a team has played in the FA Cup/FA Vase than it is to check if any of the leagues they have played in were at level 10 equivalent at the time they were in them. Especially as there is no mention on many of the league articles of what level they have been during which seasons. Delusion23 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that every level 10 club has played in the FA Cup this season. Even though they are eligible, there's nothing to stop them (or teams in higher divisions, for that matter) from simply not applying to enter the Cup. For example, just from my local level 9/10 league (the North West Counties Football League) one of the Level 9 clubs (Barnoldswick Town) didn't compete (I don't think they have ever played in the FA Cup) and at least 5 of the Level 10 teams didn't enter. I think this might be a discussion better had at WT:WPF so that more people can see it. I definitely agree with you that it is much easier to check whether a club has played in the Cup than whether they have played in a Level 10 league. Big Dom 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lineker has started his career at the club. Surely that would be notable, right? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has never participated in the FA Cup, failing WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Level 10 cut-off point has been used as an argument to keep football team articles in the past. Though I don't actually agree with it, it does appear to be concensus. I nominated Colden Common F.C. for deletion under the same criteria (no FA cup, no FA Vase, playing at low level) but it was kept as the team once played at a league level that was once considered level 10. Here is the AfD conversation [2]. According to this article's 1st AfD they played in a league that was at the time level 10. Thus from precedent it should be kept, both GiantSnowman and Argyle 4 life contributed to the keep argument. Delusion23 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My keep in the Colden Common AfD was based on the outcome of this discussion, which I forgot about when it came to this club. When judging the merits of Aylestone Park I used WP:FOOTYN, which only says that a club is notable if it competes in the national cup. The level 10 cut off didn't sit well with me, but I voted to keep Colden Common because it had been kept previously and nothing had changed since then. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The club was once part of a Level 10 league. The consensus has been to have articles for Level 10 clubs. Even though at present the club got relegated, notability is not temporary, it is permanent. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not in confers notability, do we have actually have any evidence that the club ever played in a level 10 league? Their own history page only mentions youth teams, and their tournaments page only under-12 competitions. WP:V is a policy and supersedes WP:FOOTYN, so unless someone can find any evidence, delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team has not played in the national cup of England. Delusion23 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not my job to source this article or second guess which level the club got to or interpret footyn for this very particular case. As it stands it fails footyn, if a ref demonstrating they played level 10 appears I'll change my vote. Szzuk (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE ALL. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in French music

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

Indiscriminate list with no clear reason for inclusions and exclusions, and which does not actually cover a single trend in French music in any way: Instead, it focuses on telling us when random composers were born and died. Finally, a mere fork of Music of France, which, while needing work, at least makes an attempt to put things in context and actually follow trends.

I also nominate the following:

Timeline of trends in Hungarian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this one's only trend is the trend to ignore anything before the 19th century. Again, Music of Hungary actually covers the topic this article supposedly forked off to cover, while the supposedly focused article doesn't cover its focus at all, instead being a mere indiscriminate list

If you're going to have a "timeline of trends", it needs to show trends. None of these do, and as such are completely redundant to other, much better articles.

In some ways, the worst-case scenario would be for these to be rescued - as they're forks of articles that attempt to cover their subject, this could redirect work away from the much more important, main articles. In particular Music of France has suffered severely from badly-managed forking already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's logic is compelling. A random list of dates isn't a timeline of trends, and the coverage of the French musical tradition as a Wikipedia topic is so poor that this fork is both unnecessary and unhelpful. As for the related articles on other traditions, the same logic applies; they need to relate to trends identified in the appropriate article, and to be separated out from that only if considerations of length or layout require it. AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "A random list of dates" would be 1254 and 11 and 632 which my random number generator just gave me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really an argument. I'm not even sure such a trivial attack on how it was phrased even counts as a straw man. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton's argument is a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical part of AJHingston's arguments. Turnabout is fair play. However, I will also take away from this the fact, that I had not noticed before, that only answering part of a set of arguments is not necessarily a straw man either. I always knew it was lazy and annoying. Anarchangel (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't respond to a point actually made. What the phrase meant was clear in context, and had been said in more explicit terms in the introduction. If noone is actually arguing the only point you choose to address, you're using a straw man. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I really hope you know, he didn't literally mean list of random dates, but random dates associated with music that don't really come together to form a timeline of trends.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, rename all to Death dates of X Classical composers and musicians, X being nationality, and get rid of all entries that do not fit that description. I would not be surprised at all to find out that it had originally been titled similarly and wrongly retitled. Anarchangel (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be a useful article? If it is, well, fine, but it seems hard to come up with uses for it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, more importantly, it's not really a keep vote, but a "change the scope, title, and contents" to create an article which itself would probably be an indiscriminate list of dates with no particular use.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page already exists: List of French composers. This is a content fork. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - these articles are nothing more than an indiscriminate listing of dates which, while all music related, in no way compromise a timeline. A "timeline of trends" would be murky at best, and the information it would encompass could (and should) be covered in the respected "music of" and "music history of" articles. Technically these articles could be "salvaged" from the awful state it is, but even then they would suffer from conceptual problems and still be far better served in the greater articles. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Further, we already have lists of composers by nationality for all these countries (for example List of German composers) which can easily be organized into template form which allows one to search by either alphabetical order, birth date, death date, etc. Re-naming these articles as suggested above would therefore be redundant.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. --Klein zach 11:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus, article does not match title. Claude Debussy dying is not a "trend", unless there was an outbreak of Debussy deaths in 1918. "Trends in French music" would be, for example, the fashion for Grand Opera or the vogue for jazz - and it would be very difficult to give precise dates for such trends in a timeline. Much better dealt with at Music of France. --Folantin (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Music of France. Comte0 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any content worth merging? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally don't think their is. The articles up for deletion are merely lists of composers without any factual content on them beyond when they lived. There is not enough meaningful content here to add into prose (i.e. non-list) article.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N2907

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

Contested nomination for PROD. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog. No assertion of notability of this particular tiny part. This is a parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. There's no "who", "what", "when", "where", "why" or "how" details, just a bald recitation of facts from an (unknown and unreferenced) data sheet. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - a quick look at book verifies that this is one the most popular transistor types of all time. I added a book ref with quote to show that notability. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and please stop nominating all of these. If this transistor was that popular, then it would obviously be covered at its time in all the magazines that cover things like this. Dream Focus 04:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*SpeedyKeep I'm not convinced by the due diligence presentation that nominator has done any research on this part. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by nominator I clicked on "scholar" above and after excluding patents (which are parts list mentions), I see 197 hits. This drops to 147 hits if I put in "-Q1" in the search, which excludes lots of parts list type mentions in passing. Nothing shows up with "2N2907" in the title, but lots of studies on damaging semiconductors with radiation, and a thesis on making electricity from a shoe. Is the part's total banality itself notable? Just because a part number gets mentioned, doesn't mean it's getting in-depth coverage. If I could find "The 2N2907: How it was designed", I'd be less inclined for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have excellent ELs (Transistor Museum) for the 2N2222 and how that design and its geometry was developed. Yet you're still !voting to delete that article, certainly not doing any of the content writing from those sources that would make the article into what you say that you want. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the speedykeep as a courtesy and as appropriate for a sincere response that invalidates my !vote, not because I believe that the response is sufficient as a due diligence effort to bring an article to AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking at the article now, most of it isn't even about the 2N2907. If it's in another package, it's not a 2N2907, it's another part! If it has a different JEDEC number, it's another part! There's also a bunch of lies, such as it working up to 100 MHZ - nobody can use a 2N2907 at 100 MHZ, you've confused the Ft specification with the actual performance of the part. But do we know who first made it, when it was introduced, why it was thoght to be a desirable addition to someone's product line, how it compares to other transistors of the era? How many were/are sold? What was made possible by the 2N2907 that never existed before? Was it the first/last/biggest/smallest/most powerful of its kind? Is there anything notable about it? Please? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the problem is that the article now covers several closely related parts, that's easy to fix with a move. I thought you didn't like articles about individual parts... Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - "The same transistor" can easily have multiple JEDEC numbers, if the same semiconductor is placed in different packages. They may even have different ratings, as their thermally limited performance is likely to differ. We would likely also list the PNP/NPN complementary pairs together, and if (as here) there's a genuinely related transistor that was designed as a related series from the outset. The risk is in bundling unrelated transistors together, just because a few numbers from their application specs would put them into the same parts bin on the workshop shelf. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, that's the sort of information that should be in an article. The same transistor die can be in different packages and have different ratings as a result; this explains why the Binford 6100 in the welded hermetic MIL-SPEC ceramic aerospace package dissipates 5 watts, whereas the Binford 6101 with the same die in the inexpenive waxed balsawood package is only rated 0.5 watts. But we should explain that in an section called "Transistor packaging" in an article "Silicon transistor development" with illustrations of particular design issues and how they were solved ilustrated by our favorite parts. That's why articles on individual parts are useless - they give no context. It's like the trainspotter saying "There goes No. 1701" without caring about how a railway runs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The transistor is considered by some to be the most important invention of the 20th century, so I don't think it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to have articles about the most common types. There is plenty of independent coverage available for this transistor, so it appears notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Considered...but by who? Who's writing about it? Damn it, I'm going to have to speak to the Abbot; the monestary library here is evidently missing a subscription to "Most Popular Transistors Monthly". It's a spare part! It's not an encyclopedia topic! --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 19:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1N4148

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

Contested PROD. No referenced assertion of notability. Parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. No assertion that this particular tiny piece of hardware is notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Name a diode: IN4001, IN4148 and (if you're old) IN914. Whilst I'd agree that dumping a stock list into an encyclopedia isn't the way to work, this is one of the handful that is noteworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pretty much the most commonly used diode there is, see eg [3]; every electronics hobbyist will have some in their parts box. If it were an ice-cream it would be vanilla; it it were a soft drink it would be Coke; if it were a car it would be a Ford. It is clearly notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator If it was notable, there would be independent reliable sources other than parts catalogs. Where are the sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it was notable that could be reliable sources added to the article. The gap between sources that are applicable and those that are already listed is that covered by WP:BEFORE. Ignoring this is just not helpful to building the quality encyclopedia that we're supposed to be working towards.

What is your point here? That the article fails to express notability (it probably doesn't), or that its subject could not achieve notability, even with effort? One of these is a lazy AfD, the other is naivety about the subject, something which I believed you had knowledge of. It is always quicker to write AfDs than it is to build defensible articles. If your point is just to prove speed in a typing contest, then congratulations, you've won. However, is that really a useful result? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by nominator The article has been here for four years and is still a copy of a datasheet. There is no explanation as to who makes this part, when it was invented, why it was invented, what significance it has to the world. We're not going to get any of that, because there are no sources - someone would have found a source in four years if such things existed, and they don't. Wikipedia isn't about things that are true or important - it's about things that are verifiable, and there's nothing offered so far that asserts the notability of this tiny part. Why is it here? No-one has explained that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an utterly ubiquitous component known to every electronics engineer and hobbyist. Sources might be hard to find online but at least one research paper thought his diode was important enough to investigate individually. And here is an ESD study of this diode. SpinningSpark 10:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the component is mentioned in 3640 books and 3900 academic papers. Mange01 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3640 books works for me. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertions above of ubiquitousness.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure the part number appears in thousands of parts lists. That doesn't make it notable. A passing mention is not enough. Significant non-trivial coverage is required. Do any of these thousands of books and papers answer such questions as "When was the 1N4148 invented?", "Who invented it? ", "Why was it desirable to develop it?" "How is it made?" "How does it differ in properties from other similar products?" "Why is is commonly used?" "How many are sold each year?" "Who makes it?", etc. - in other words, why is this part notable? My name appears in 300,000 books,too, but that doesn't make me notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple paths to notability in Wikipedia. These include:

1) WP:5

2) WP:TheGoodOfTheEncyclopedia

3) notability essays

4) notability guidelines

a) "occasional exceptions" noted by the notability guidelines

b) SNGs,

c) WP:N and that the topic satisfies the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice". WP:N does not require that WP:GNG be satisfied (see WP:GNG).

The search [inurl:1n4148] generates initially 25,200 web pages which reduces to 633 by making Google list the pages. The existence of each such web page is reliable (can be verified by readers). To the extent that each of those 633 web pages are from different publishers, those 633 web pages are each statements that the topic meets the definition of notability in WP:N, i.e., is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is it significant coverage? Does anyone explain anything about the 1N4148 aside from saying "Popular part, thus and so characteristics". For instance, when was it first made? Who first made it? How many are made each year? Why did we need a 1N4148 when we already had the 1N914? You know, non-parts-list related stuff, that makes an article instead of a cross-reference guide entry. (Even this is getting rather obsessivly detailed for a general purpose encyclopedia; Horowitz and Hill don't do more than mention the diode in passing, I bet.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not require "significant coverage". It is not WP:N itself that mentions "significant coverage", that is in WP:GNG. The definition of "notability" in WP:N is "worthy of notice", for which WP:GNG is (but) a guideline (see the last paragraph in WP:GNG). Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to Wikipedia and see hairs split finer than you've ever seen them split before. It's a spare part. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Simple? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just reverted a non-admin close as speedy keep, because it doesn't fit the criteria for WP:SPEEDYKEEP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frocker

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

Likely non-notable original game. PROD was removed by creator without explanation. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple links have been provided ie youtube video, facebook group page and a Frocker IV facebook event page. PROD was removed with explanation Talk:Frocker (Mdeff1 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment Ok, so the game exists, do you have anything to show it is Notable? Monty ₈₄₅ 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook, YouTube etc aren't reliable sources. Look at WP:RS. Until something appears in the article to show notability, it's a fail. Sorry, that's the way it works. Almost anything can be posted on the social networking sites. We're an encyclopaedia - with rules. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Even Urban Dictionary comes up with unrelated definitions of the term. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a news article last year in the local paper but not on a website. This is a real game, but understand if the Wikipedia community decides to remove this page until there is third party source. (Mdeff1 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate it is notable, just passing WP:MADEUP novelty. No reliable sourcing to show notability--ClubOranje^T 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like something me & my mates would do following a few too many down the pub. Giant Snowman 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources to indicate that it is notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TIP31

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

Contested nomination for PROD. Aside from rather narrow discussion within the world of electronics, no notability as per the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog and every single semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia may have indefinitely expandable storage space but editor time is a finite resource. Suggest integrate with Transistor instead of having a parts catalog entry for every device. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst agreeing the general point "every single semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles.", this (and some of the nom's other AfDs) are those that make the cut for being notable in their own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator If they are notable, then there are WP:RS showing their notability. It's only been tagged as unreferenced for 4 years...--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears in over 300 books. That's more notable than your congressional representative, I bet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list one book that covers the TIP31 in some depth, other than a parts list description and an observation that this is a really neat transistor. Ideally we'd like to know who invented this transistor, when it was first manufactured, why it was thought to be needed, what it did better than competitive transistors, how was it important to the products of the time, what has since replaced it - you know, about the same level of information we'd expect in a human biography or the level of coverage we'd expect from a garage band that was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It's hard to believe, but my district doesn't get to send nyone to Congress. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I'd like to see too, and for this transistor (also the 2N3055, OC71 and a few others) that sort of detail should be possible to achieve. We do not (should not) delete articles because they're currently incomplete within this scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 19:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file hosting services

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

There are a lot of these "comparison of..." articles, but I think they are a shopping guide for which service to use. The list will also never be complete, as new sites are popping up all the time. Also, several entries are redlinks or external links. A category should be used, and there already is one. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion rationale here. Many of these comparison articles have survived AFDs, so there is no consensus that the very format is inappropriate on Wikipedia. It is irrelevant that the list will never be complete; most lists on Wikipedia do not purport to be complete, but rather just list items that meet article inclusion criteria. New sites, if notable, can obviously be added to this comparison article by any editor, because that's rather what Wikipedia is about. Most entries in this list are bluelinks, and we don't delete a list of notable entries just because some nonnotable ones may have snuck in. As for the redlinks or external links, they can be removed (again, by any editor) if they do not merit articles or have another compelling reason to be on the list. We don't delete articles for content that can be fixed (again, by any editor). postdlf (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I too don't follow the nominators rationale. There are plenty of incomplete comparison lists which are here in the Category:Software_comparisons and Category:Online_services_comparisons. There's also a template {{Dynamic list}} for incomplete lists. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists. As for the article, the red links seem to be notable sites...though the list should probably be broken into a free/pay parts.Smallman12q (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-category wouldn't work because this list has good summary comparison information, while a category would make you read every article. Ma^t_chups 03:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-this site has a fairly good overview and is seems to be used by a lot of people. Why delete a good evaluation reference. It would take hours to get this comparement information from somewhere else. BenMoll (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per above clauses and reasonings. This comparison should stay, although it may need some refactoring or cleaning. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 Best V8 Supercars Driver Ever

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

No context or criteria for this list is given, no explanation. Looks like the author just made it up. Article name is terrible. Many wrong links. Strange unreferences hidden note about public domain. Content of this article is essentially unexplained. Falcadore (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY, opinionated original research. Could someone confirm if that OTRS ticket exists? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Satō

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

A Japanese gravure idol. No references given. Can't find anything that makes her notable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable model, tried to find something that would enhance her notability, but didn't succeed, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe it's bad form with an AfD going, but I speedied the article, since it doesn't even try to assert the subject's importance, and if the person who created the article can't assert it, no one else probably can either. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Code five

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

An article about a game that has been unreleased, and is currently not noteworthy. Heywoodg 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed your malformed AFD listing, but as this is listed as 2nd nomination, was there a previous AFD? Monty ₈₄₅ 21:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes I believe there was. There was a proposal for deletion on 12:13, 26 March 2011 by Kateshortforbob. Is that the same? Oris a proposal different? Sorry if they are different, I am still learning! Heywoodg 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:PROD proposal for deletion is a separate deletion process (as is speedy deletion), a defeated prod or CSD doesn't count as a previous AFD nomination, only previous nominations here do. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I moved the AFD (without redirect) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code five so as not to confuse others as to what nomination this is. –MuZemike 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero verifiable information about this. Company website has vanished, no wayback cache, no Google hits, no anything. Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there website has been experiancing glitches and is now up and running Nothercloth (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I originally proposed the article for deletion.) The company website is here; the page given in the article is a 404. The company consists of a small group of young people; the game currently has not been released, there have been no previews, demos or "buzz". The gaming press has not written about the game, as far as I can tell. Mods are not normally notable - is the code, art, etc. entirely original, or is it still a mod? If the latter, there will be problems getting it published commercially. I don't mean to sound harsh, but an undeveloped game "pitched" by one teenager to another, with no coverage in reliable sources, is unlikely to qualify under Wikipedia's notability policy. --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, and not that it matters, but there isn't any coverage in unreliable sources either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belt buckle hole

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

Unsourced, non-encyclopedic entry without information worthy of being added to Belt; an unlikely search term not worth redirecting. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This material could easily be covered in belt. Illinois2011 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, original research and advocates a point of view, implies falsely that the belt buckle hole, by itself, keeps up the trousers when, in fact, it is the mobile spike on the belt that is placed into the hole! Even if it were correct, it would be impermissible under WP:NOTHOWTO. This is unsalvageable, irredeemable, possibly violates WP:BLP1E, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, though I'm not certain how. Author has also written some equally controversial articles about the curtain ring and the pen lid. These would be useful for people who have seen these items and have no idea how they work. Mandsford 22:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're overlooking WP:HOAX, as it is not the buckle which has the hole, but the belt itself. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the term means hole for a belt buckle, not hole in a belt buckle, so it is not entirely inaccurate. Anyway, I say Delete, for those who want a bolded statement. Perhaps the page creator, too, could be temporarily blocked for repeated hoaxing/trolling. LordVetinari (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gertler was joking about the hole in the belt buckle thing, of course. His or her comments in the nomination, of course, are right on point. Mandsford 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: look at creators' creations, he's yanking our chains.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added pen lid to afd as well. You can find its entry here. Illinois2011 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BREAKSEVERYRULE, which doesn't exist but should do. I give it 3 days before somebody suggests snowball deletion, which is an incorrect prediction because I just suggested it. Anyway, yeah, delete it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Weyl

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

Notability per WM: Notability (academics) 3andfourquarters (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed for deletion because the subject is not a notable academic per Wikipedia guidelines. The article does not justify notability per those guidelines, and reads like self promotion. 3andfourquarters (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — 3andfourquarters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep That bio is pretty impressive, I'd go so far as to say notable. Does "Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows" qualify under WP:PROF C3? Even if not under C3, I think he is notable enough to keep an article, which by the way is very well cited. Also, to argue WP:CRYSTAL, which is not valid, but I'm going to anyway, I would be surprised if he didn't meet notability criteria in the near future if you think he doesn't now. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Society of Fellows is prestigious, but I don't think it rises to the level of C3, especially since it is an early career award (prior to first tenure track position) and not based on prior contribution, but rather academic promise. If you look at the Wikipedia page for Junior Fellows at the Harvard Society of Fellows, the ones listed with Wikipedia entries are all senior academic economists and full professors with much, much longer CVs and contributions to the profession who were fellows long ago. In many cases their membership in the Harvard Society of Fellows as a junior fellow is not even mentioned on their wikipedia pages, indicating the stature of the award.[[4]] 3andfourquarters (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article looks like a self promotion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It does reek of self-promotion, but he's a notable person (almost every person I've met working in economics knows his name). I suggest we remove the Early Life section and the other quotes, and keep the rest. Prochron (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.205.161 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do not know if he's notable enough for wikipedia, he's definitely well known in the field. Mostly because he graduated with a Ph.D+ B.A in Princeton in 5 years and has gotten a lot of attention from new york times articles. Generally he's viewed as a rising star not someone who has made outstanding contributions yet. 98.71.123.141 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What attention has he gotten from the New York Times other than his wedding announcement? I can't find anything, and his Wiki article only cites Princeton and Harvard news releases (and his CV).

As for everyone in the field knowing who he is, I don't believe he is more notable among economists than any of the handful of other stars on the economics job market this year, none of whom have wikipedia entries.

Again, going by the Wiki notability criteria, I don't see how he qualifies for an entry. 3andfourquarters (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks a bit cheesy as of now, but Weyl is notable. Speaking as an economist who's researching on two-sided markets as well, I have to say his recent AER paper is remarkable. We could delete his article now, only to re-add him when the next Economist survey on top young economists appears, because Weyl will be part of it. --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is promising at best. He is not even one of the prestigous restud tourists chosen among the job market candidates this year, ie, he is not even in top 7 in his year. Note that none of these restud tourists have their own wiki entries. Weyl does not meet the notability criteria. Serendipities (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotion. He is sorta-well-known among grad students and some academic economists but mostly for his relentless self-promotion. His CV and publications are not any more notable than many other economists on the junior job market in this or any other year. -Sire Bruce (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Sire Bruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, the second single-purpose account eager to remove this article. How come? --bender235 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page got posted on a widely read economist message board (EconJobRumors). I would guess that is the source of the new people. At least it was for me. I ended up contributing because I am acquainted with Glen. I do not have any explicit evidence of self-promotion in this case but thought it was worth contributing the information that he is notorious for egregious self-promotion within the profession. -Sire Bruce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Self-promotion. Weyl just got a tenure-track position. Many famous economists who are tenured don't even have wikipedia pages. Serendipities (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Serendipities (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Third single-purpose account. What is going on here? --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that people don't want to expose themselves because of possible reprisals. Serendipities (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may well be on-track to pass WP:PROF eventually but he doesn't seem to be there yet. The citation counts in Google scholar aren't enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1, the only hits in Google news that are about him rather than by him are a marriage announcement and a brief quote in a student newspaper story about a political convention, and there is similarly little in Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eppstein. GS cites are 28, 24, 20.. with h index = 5; not enough for WP:Prof#C1. The Harvard Society of Fellows is an illustrious institution, but a Junior Fellow is early career. On the track to WP notability but not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a postdoctoral fellow( "he will be an assistant professor at Chicago Next year " -- his web site.) with a few good papers. not yet notable, and I hope the attempt to introduce this now will not count against him when he does become notable , as seems likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete: a new academic who does as yet not appear to me to have a sufficient amount of work to pass our WP:Prof. WoS calculates a h-index of 1 with 6 articles with 3,1,1,0,0,0 cites. Of these 6 citations 2 are self citations. The article's tone would not seem to rule out this being a joke page created to cause embarrassment. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There is an abusive comment here [5] that claims a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, getting some attention while an undergraduate back in 2007 means that Weyl was an undergraduate in 2007. To put this another way, being the tallest 5-year-old child in California in 2011 or the highest scoring baseball player in Little League in 2005 is evidence of the weakness of the competition. Abductive (reasoning) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It is clear that this person is a junior academic. It is also clear that none of his positions or accomplishments (undergrad awards, accelerated education, letter to Friedman, etc.) render him notable per se. He does have research accomplishments, but they are extremely typical of a junior academic: 6 papers with a grand total of 5 citations and h-index=1 (WoS). Probably notable in the future, but art will have to wait until then. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

5 citations? His 2010 American Economic Review paper alone has two dozens citations as of now. --bender235 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My view is that I do not think there is anyone doubting that his achievments to date are impressive. But the problem is he is an early career academic and has not, in many people's views, yet achieved WP:Prof notability. It may be one would wish to go down the general notability route - as a noted high flier - but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for this presented in the article or evident elsewhere. The small number of citations reported on WoS is due to its not including Working Paper series and the like which I think are incorporated in Google Scholar. It might be a good idea to take a copy of the article to work on and when he is more firmly established and has some more publications that have been cited widely then a new version of the article could be produced. I think also there may be some resitance due to the over promotional tone of the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. As Msrasnw observed, most of those citations are from unpublished white-papers. Convention in the academic world holds that "published" means publication through an established, peer-reviewed outlet, usually a journal (there are tens of thousands of them). GS slurps some of these in, but also many more citations from sources that are not "published" by the above definition and so are not considered to carry the weight or authority of a citation from a published source. Often GS and WoS give very close results, but sometimes they're quite different (as here). Though I'm not suggesting so in this case, GS citations can also easily be rigged (see here), an issue that came up in another recent Afd. It is largely for these reasons that WP:PROF identifies WoS and Scopus as the only "approved" citation databases (in the sense that they can basically be used without reservation), while attaching extremely cautionary language to others (including GS). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Google scholar question: Does anyone know how things at google scholar are working in this case? Looing at the google scholar entry for Weyl's AER article:

This is listed Second in the list) as A price theory of multi-sided platforms The American Economic Review, 2010 - ingentaconnect.com

If one clicks on the cited by the first entry is Search engines: Left side quality versus right side profits Toulouse School of Economics Working Paper, 2008 - papers.ssrn.com

The Weyl reference in here is Weyl, E. Glen (2008). \The Price Theory of Two-Sided Markets". Working Paper. Available

at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/�weyl/pt2sms 7 08.pdf

This seems to me to be a different paper and is listed separately as the third in google scholar list for Weyl and is cited by the AER paper itself.

The second cited by for the AER entry is listed as http://www.ifo.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2010/wp-cesifo-2010-03/cesifo1_wp3004.pdf . But Weyl doesn't seem to be in this article.

Google Scholar - seems to be behaving oddly or is something funny going on. Is it doing double counting? Or, which is quite possible, am I making some silly mistake? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Ken Rock

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

A Google search does not turn up any coverage by reliable, third-party sources. All it does turn up is illegal scanlations, forum posts, and retail websites. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Licensed in France by Doki Doki with 10 volumes released there.
Received coverage in French from :

Bodoï

ActuaBD

Manga Sanctuary (click Critique MS)

Manga-News : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Animland: long take on vol. 1, short takes: 1 2 3 4

Planète BD: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Note: Probably an English scanlation reader article creation :( --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to meet the GNG. Per KrebMarkt, judging from the attention it has received extensive coverage in french, it is likely that more sources exist. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KrebMarkt's excellent research and the hits in my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 19:49 30 March 2011 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holmfirth Town F.C.

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

Non-notable low-level amateur club ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club hasn't played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 21:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't played at a high enough level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Club hasn't played at a high enough level to be notable and there is no indication that it has done anything else of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURINJOKEONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY JDDJS (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futbol Club de Real Bigone

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

Blatant hoax that was recreated even after salting. Salt even more (create=sysop) indefinitely. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futbol Club de Real Bigone (2nd nomination). Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:CSD G3, G4. Needs to go to deletion review before recreation. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are discounted as they do not address the requirements of the applicable policies and guidelines, notably WP:V and WP:N, which do absolutely require reliable third-party secondary sources. Sandstein 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War

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

Defunct browser game, has two sources: one passing mention in The Escapist: "Noteworhy UD imitators include Nexus War and Shartak." and an article from a site called "bbgsite" ("a global professional browser based game portal") which doesn't seem a reliable source and could well be just a press release. Was deleted twice before. Sloane (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Sloane (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'd think that if the article keeps on getting recreated, that there's bound to be at least some noteworthiness to it. Or is this going to be another one of those "Source Y is not notable, but Source Z is" kind of discussions? "[C]ould well just be a press release" does not instill confidence as to things being thoroughly checked out. --moof (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But hey, a filk song was written about it. To the tune of American Pie! I guess that means something.--Sloane (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone spent time writing that. It meant something to those who did. I'd appreciate you not making fun of them for it.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to be a lot of coverage in Joystiq's WoW blog, and a few short mentions in other places. The game got killed a year and a half ago after being up for 3 and a half years. Likely not notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only is the game notable in itself (8000 players, independent sources etc.), it spawned an independent successor (see nexusclash.com) and is an important note in the history of browser games, particularly in relation to urban dead. The article is informative, reasonable and covers a minor but noteworthy topic. The onus to provide a strong argument is on those who would delete such a reasonable article. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia --The Supreme Court (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— The Supreme Court (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A small aside: this isn't a single-purpose account, this is my only wikipedia account. As you can see from the date of the userpage creation, I've had it for several years now! True, I don't make many edits, but I like to think that a single edit across years of reading is a somewhat significant contribution. --The Supreme Court (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit, it is weird that the only place you have edited is on your userpage and AfDs. Unless you make more edits while not logged in, it seems to be a single purpose account. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the WP:BURDEN to provide sources for notability is on whoever is adding content, not removing it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Honestly? Nexus War is to me, the direct successor to Urban Dead. If Urban Dead can have a wikipedia page, and is "relevant so is nexuswar, purely from a historic context - to illustrate the point, in the world of browser games, Urban Dead is VHS, and Nexus War is DVD. There are many pretenders that don't really make it very far, including Shintolin itself deleted to the wiki, and furthering themes from Urban Dead and Shartak [again, deleted from the Wiki] - Nexus war may be defunct now, but it represents an important chunk, with over 8000 active players in it's heyday, and with a community that even now continues, I think a deletion in this case is merely due to a lack of understanding on the part of the wikipedia community. This isn't exactly Geocities, but it's easily on a par with games such as Nationstates, or Neopets - both of which have pages. Honestly, it's shortsighted for the article being removed due to it being defunct, it's an important part of the chain, and while I no longer play a large part in the browser based community, this is an important part. --Dark wingstalker (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's nice that you like a game, but that isn't reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. Try to find good, multiple reliable sources that attest to this game's notability.--Sloane (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability due to the lack of multiple non-trivial and reliable sources. Although it was apparently featured in Custom PC magazine no further usable sources have come to light. There is no indication that BBGSite is reliable, the Escapist source is extremely trivial, the other citations do not cover the game either and include a wiki and a forum post. The situation hasn't changed. I would gladly switch to keep if relevant sources could be found, but after all this time they still haven't and it seems unlikely. Someone another 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article itself asserts lack of significant third-party coverage when it states "Nexus War has received little publicity in the three and a half years it has been active". --EEMIV (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the secondary coverage is as the nominator describes. Custom VG google search shows Nexus mentioned in reader comments/forums, but no significant coverage. Optionally redirect to Urban Dead and briefly mention there, per the Escapist magazine citation. Marasmusine (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite a few hits on forums and reader comments indicates that it's well-known among people that enjoy this sort of thing. Efil's god (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Shanefield

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

No indication that this ceramics engineer satisfies WP:PROFESSOR or WP:BIO. This article has been WP:PRODded in the past. The article has a long history of WP:COI with the subject editing the article himself. Pburka (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For how long he worked at Bell labs he probably did something notable, but there is really no claim of notability present, referenced or otherwise, so delete. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he has several published materials and has purported high standing within an academic institution, there is no indication that any reliable independent sources have recognized any significant academic impact he has made. Lord Arador (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote, happy to see it sourced. J04n(talk page) 22:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment I agree with all the above reasoning with respect to the PROFESSOR and GNG guidelines, but see one more path to notability not discussed. The Gscholar results suggest some citations made of his work, including a book, I'm sufficiently inexperienced with notability via citation and WP:SCHOLAR that I'm not taking a position on the matter, but I'd welcome a comment on that point. Switched to Keep based on improvements to sourcing, e.g., the section in Raoux. Nicely done. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search turns up a lot of hits. Most are to conference proceedings with articles by Shanefield, but at least a few are by other people. One describes him as a pioneer in phase change memories. Google Scholar turns up books, papers, and patents by Shanefield that have received a fair number of citations. The reason there are no references or claims of notability in the current version of the page is that they have been systematically deleted, always by a user identified only by an IP address. Apparently someone is piqued that Prof. Shanefield has edited his own page. While frowned upon, this is not illegal, and the material that was formerly there all seems verifiable. Better than deleting the page would be to restore the removed material, toning it down a bit to read less like a CV, and to add some citations to independent sources. Will Orrick (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. --bender235 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. Plenty of reliable sources can be found via GS which give and h index of 13, probably enough to make a pass of WP:Prof#C1 marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, after years in industry, he was hired as Professor II at Rutgers, which is roughly equivalent to Distinguished Professor at other American universities. Rutgers is a major research university. This suggests that he is notable in his field. Will Orrick (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to his cv [6] he is a fellow of Amer. Inst. Chemists and American Ceramic Society. I'm not sure about the AIC one but I think the ACS one is likely a pass of WP:PROF#C3, and the cv details enough important accomplishments that, if they can be documented by third party sources (and I've already documented two, tape casting and phase-change memory), would pass #C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have made significant improvements to the article since it was first nominated. Could the people who !voted to delete it on the basis of how bad it was at nomination time please review it again? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elected fellows (not merely members) of professional associations of this standing surely meet WP:PROF. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn by User:EkoGraf. (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Battle of Brega

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

Simply put, there was no battle. Loyalist forces simply retreated from Brega even before the rebels arrived. And if there were any clashes, but nobody is reporting there were any, than they were only minor firefights between forward rebel units and rear-guard loyalist troops. No sources exist that confirm some kind of battle occured for the town. EkoGraf (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, but merge whatever salvageable content there is regarding the recapture of the town to Second Battle of Brega. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per EkoGraf. Info has already been included in Second Battle of Brega and Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising. 140.247.147.229 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Delete. BGManofID (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising as there are no reports about actuall battle. --EllsworthSK (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite the "battle" as an endnote at Battle of Ajdabiya. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and cite as an epilogue for the Ajdabiya battle. "...heading to Ras Lanuf encountering no resistance". Hegmn (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Or rather, Brega. 140.247.145.184 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)~~ My apologies, all read up on my news now! 140.247.145.184 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeing as there was no actual battle. A sentence in relevant articles can cover this. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the BBC's website, 27 March (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12873434): 'Libyan rebels are advancing westwards after re-taking the port of Ajdabiya from Muammar Gaddafi's forces. They have captured the coastal town of Brega without a fight and say they are moving towards the heartland of Col Gaddafi's support.' QED. Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AJE reporter says remaining Gaddafi fighters surrendered immediately ScepticMatt (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or melt into 2nd battle of Brega, mentionning a second phase. Kormin (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source saying yet again that this was "not a battle" but rather a "withdrawal and a surrender of Gaddafi's forces" (2:51 time slot). (AJE) 140.247.145.184 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least for the time being. Its title ("3rd battle of Brega" fits well with the others (1st & 2nd battles), although in time the whole network of articles may be restructured. This is OK for now. Any change will create confusion (e.g. why is one called "Battle of Brega" while the other is just an adjunct to the Battle of Ajdebaya - which anyhow is about 200km away!)

Aa42john (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Problem wasn't with title but rather the issue that there was no battle to speak of. In fact, I think I smell consensus...? 140.247.146.66 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you smell right. :) EkoGraf (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't recall a Third Battle of Brega... Cowik (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There wasn't specifically a 'Third Battle of Brega' but there was a specific offensive which has ended up with the rebels in control of Brega and Ras Lanuf. It would be a mistake, I think, to mess up the concise 2nd battle of Brega, or ignore this crucial military push. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.152 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information is already included in relevant articles (the timeline, the Battle of Ajdabiya, previous battles of Brega). Perhaps a Conquest of Brega, Ra's Lanuf, and Bin Jawad or something? Or has the media given a name to it, say, 26 March Offensive or something? Consequences of the Battle of Ajdabiya? Or should we just leave it as is with the information on those other pages? 140.247.147.170 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "offensive" and using the term "conquest" would have bad connotations, it was a recapture of a territory after a strategic retreat by pro-Gaddafi forces. Nothing less, nothing more.Ihosama (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there was no battle. But by all means mention it somewhere with the refs - perhaps at Marsa Brega article itself, and/or the article for the second battle and/or the timeline article. Herostratus (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Merge this and Third Battle of Brega into Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive per later discussion. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change change it from 3rd Battle of Brega to something like Retaking of Brega or Counteroffensive of Libyan Rebels or possibly Brega Skirmishes (March 26-27) or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.112.178 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is an interesting proposal. If we can find the sources to support it, a unified article describing this latest rebel offensive would be quite useful. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.VR _talk 04:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge usable citations into the Battle of Ajdabiya article as the recapture of Brega was its direct consequence/continuation.Ihosama (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-purpose The "Third" battle of Brega seems to be taking place right about now.Ihosama (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... if there's consensus, should this be deleted now? 140.247.144.74 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is consensus, anybody got a delete button? EkoGraf (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is no other smooth article transition from pro-Gadhafi control to anti-Gadhafi control. Such a transition cannot be considered a part of the Second Batle of Brega, and it's not a smooth transition if the numbering is done away with. This is the best way to handle the three battles of Brega. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just invent a battle that didn't exist for the sake of "a smooth transition". However, I'd be more than happy to see a Late March 2011 Rebel Offensive or Sirte Offensive or especially a Battle of An Nawfaliyah per the AJE live blog and other sources. Maybe both a Recapture of Brega and Ra's Lanuf article for the easy takeover of those towns and other coastal towns and a separate Battle of An Nawfaliyah article for the fighting going on in that area? We can't invent a Third Battle of Brega out of convenience. 140.247.147.221 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as they were all part of one operation, perhaps Second rebel advance on Sirte or something like that? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea. What I don't understand is why this article still exists.... 140.247.244.161 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking that maybe Late March 2011 Libyan Rebel Offensive wouldn't be such a bad idea. Not Sirte Offensive or Battle of An Nawfaliyah, but Late March 2011 Libyan Rebel Offensive might just be a good idea. However by all accounts it's coming to an end very soon since loyalists are at the gates of Ajdabiya again. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late March 2011 Libyan Rebel Offensive would be great. I understand the thing with all battles being a series of skirmishes, but this was one fluid military action covering hundreds of kilometers. And yeah, we might have to tack on a Late March 2011 Libyan Loyalist Counteroffensive at the rate things are going.... Is there an overarching Eastern Front (Libya) article possibility to gather these kind of things together? 140.247.145.77 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about: First Libyan Rebel Coastal Offensive (of March 2011) - First Libyan Loyalist Coastal Offensive (of March 2011) - Second Libyan Rebel Coastal Offensive (of March 2011) - Second Libyan Loyalist Coastal Offensive (of March 2011).

And keep separate articles regarding specific battles where justified. I would suggest to avoid the use of Early March, Late March for that would lead to a Mid March Loyalist offensive. Also using "counteroffensive" shall be avoided as it has an embedded meaning who is the attacker so it could be considered as biased.Ihosama (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Brega articles into one Battles of Brega. There may end up being ten or so by the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is now an article Fourth Battle of Brega created today (apparently the battle is ongoing as I write this). Whichever side wins, a fifth battle (at least) seems likely. So rather than just deleting this article (which would leave Fourth Battle of Brega intact barring a separate deletion discussion, ditto Fifth Battle of Brega if/when created), can this be sorted out in some other way? Also, one question I have is: are there reliable sources using the term "Third Battle of Brega" or is this just made up by us? That's allowed, but still. Closing admin will have a difficult task... Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one calling Third Battle of Brega a Third Battle of Brega. Also, this fourth battle looks like it's jst like this third one. A small clash between forward loyalist units and rearguard rebel units. No real battle. However I think I have found a solution. A creation of an article named Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive or March-April 2011 Libyan rebel offensive if it continues into April. We would merge both the Second battle of Bin Jawad and these so-called third and fourth battles of Brega into this one article. Any objections to this proposal? EkoGraf (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MergeI was the one who created the 'fourth battle of brega' page, simply due to what i was reading on the news site I go on. I was expecting some consensus to be reached that the 'third battle' was really a battle and articles to be renamed/deleted accordingly. However, I seen the merged article, think that works better, seeing as the so-called 'fourth battle' didn't appear to be much of a battle either and given whats happened so far in the conflict, the battle numbers could realistically get ridiculous. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, and it might still be a good idea to have an additional Eastern Front (2011 Libyan Civil War) summary article. 140.247.144.98 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keep up the good work EkoGraf! Ihosama (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article has been replaced by the new article Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive in the usual set of articles for the Libyan civil war. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is NO good reason to delete this article. It's brevity over information, this page should be kept Swalgal (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-address considering that the rebels retook the town, quickly lost it again and now have returned and are fighting for control of it again with Gaddafi Loyalists, I think the so-called 'third battle' would be what is happening now KP-TheSpectre (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that the current fighting at Brega doesn't stop by tomorrow should we maybe consider calling the current fighting there the third battle of Brega? As it is the loyalists retook the town on March 30, the rebels attempted a counter-attack on March 31 and were beaten back, they are attempting another counter-attack today. If the situation doesn't change by tomorrow we leave it as it is, however if there are changes on the frontline by tomorrow we should maybe rewritte this article so it fits with this new third battle of brega that started on March 30 or 31 however you see it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fighting around Brega is continuing, with Al Jazeera reporting that rebels now control much of the town (see http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-2). I think it would be better the delete the current contents of the article and replace them with the details of what is going on currently, as this amount to more of a 'Third battle of Brega'. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Info can be found without much difficulty on major news sources... that there are few sources is the fault of editor laziness and not of the topic itself. [also, one should note that there has been a fourth battle of Brega, in which the regime retook the city from the rebels, and then a fifth, where the rebels counterattacked a few days after; the fifth is still ongoing.]--Yalens (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring to as the 'Third' and 'Fourth' battles were not really battles, the rebels took the city in the 'third battle' without firing a shot, as did the loyalists a few days later. these have now been merge into the late march rebel offensive. what you call the 'fifth battle', is really more the third KP-TheSpectre (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we do the following. In essence the Late March rebel offensive ended when they were pushed back to Brega. Than started the Third battle of Brega. The content on the Third battle of Brega from the rebel offensive article will be moved to this article and be rewritten. The rebel offensive ended in their defeat. We will see now how this battle of Brega ends. EkoGraf (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I the nominator for deletion of this article am changing my vote to keep since there is now a real Third Battle of Brega, unlike what happened a week ago. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of phone prefixes in Omaha, Nebraska

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

Violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, as it's just a directory of phone prefixes. There are no such lists for any other North American cities, and for good reason. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sort of list could only be a reproduction of information taken from another source, and readers would be better served by checking the databases that actually cover that sort of thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory and per failure of verifiability, since no source is provided for the claims. I could add "402-202 Dingledoofer Phone Co." to the list and it would be as reliably sourced as the other listings as is "402-294 TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP - OMAHA." Edison (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being unverifiable, it also seems to be inaccurate, or at least incredibly out of date. I just checked the list against the one external link there is, and half of the prefixes aren't assigned to the same company in the article and the link. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's refreshing to see an article that literally violates the rule that "Wikipedia is not a directory". I'm not certain what purpose it would serve. Dingledoofer went out of business, by the way-- for whatever reason, the Dingledoofer telephones didn't include a 3 on the keypad, just went 124567890. The monthly plan was low and there was unlimited texting, except you couldn't use the letters D, E or F, very frustrating. Mandsford 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was intntional, so customrs couldn't complain. Whn thy tri to typ th company's nam, it cam out Ingloor. Ma^t_chups 03:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-- txting on a ingloor cllphon I notic! Thos things wr so ucking uslss..Usr:Mansor 03:15, 29 March 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ALREADY REDIRECTED. Nothing left to see here. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Brower Barkley

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

Fails WP:GNG and, as we all know, notability is not inherited. TM 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alben W. Barkley. Pburka (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge and redirect. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, merge and redirect. --Kumioko (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point of order: Why is there an AFD if it has already been redirected? I concur with redirecting, since she seems only known for being related to a Vice President of the US, and notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Big Dom 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Cousins

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

Unsourced article about a college football quarterback with no awards, or other claims to notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE, as he's never competed professionally. There is a handful of hits on Google news for him, but no significant coverage; they simply confirm that the subject is a football player. The article can be recreated if he goes on to play professionally or wins a notable award. (If there's an existing consensus that college football players are inherently notable, please forgive my nomination. I'm not aware of any such consensus, but I do understand that university sports are taken much more seriously in the US than elsewhere.) Pburka (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starting quarterbacks at the major college football teams almost always are going to satisfy notability requirements based on the extensive coverage in the press. In this case, Cousins was a two-year starter for a Big Ten team who led the team to an 11-2 record and a major bowl game in his final year. A search of google news archives reveals dozens of stories about Cousins (not just passing references in game coverage) in multiple media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage include stories in major metropolitan newspapers and other sources like The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ESPN, and Detroit Free Press: (1) Ailing Cousins seals Spartans' victory with a diving TD, The Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2010; (2) Living a dream: QB Kirk Cousins ready to lead MSU, The Detroit News, Sept. 1, 2010; (3) Kirk Cousins shooting for greatness, accepts challenge of leading Spartans in Alamo Bowl, The Grand Rapids Press, Dec. 27, 2009; (4) [Kirk Cousins' season tops list of notable local 2010 sports stories Kirk Cousins' season tops list of notable local 2010 sports stories], The Holland Sentinel, Dec. 26, 2010; (5) Michigan State's Kirk Cousins not hiding from pressure of Capital One Bowl: 'I have to play well', The Grand Rapids Press, Jan. 1, 2011; (6) Cousins expects to remain starting QB Michigan State, Detroit Free Press, Oct 1, 2009; (7) Kirk Cousins takes charge as Spartans' unquestioned leader, The Detroit News, Dec 29, 2010; (8) Spartans to start Cousins at QB, ESPN.com, Sept. 1, 2009; (9) Michigan State QB Kirk Cousins rolls with the punches, Detroit Free Press, Jan 2, 2011; (10) QB competition has helped Cousins, Nichol sharpen skills, Lansing State Journal, August 12, 2009; (11) Iowa link for Spartans' QB: Grandfather of Cousins a former Hawkeyes player, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 27, 2010; (12) Spartans quarterback Kirk Cousins embraces leadership duties in offseason, The Grand Rapids Press, Aug. 3, 2010; (13) Quarterback Kirk Cousins rises to head of State, The Detroit News, Nov. 18, 2009; (14) Michigan State QB Kirk Cousins Fueled By Christian Faith, Everyday Christian, Oct. 11, 2010; (15) Q&A with Michigan State QB Kirk Cousins, Orlando Sentinel, Mar. 23, 2011 . Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all information in the article is verifiable. Yes, the sources need to be added and likely will be soon--but remember there is no deadline. Subject more than surpasses general notability guideline with significant coverage in the media and that is more than enough for inclusion, even if the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. See WP:ABELINCOLN for details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination given Cbl62's sources and Paul McDonald's WP:GNG argument. Pburka (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA)

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. A7. No indication of importance. This article lacks any reliable source to verify its claims and also it certainly lacks notability. The tone of article is good for advertisement. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar companies in Iran. None of them meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. PSOILFHJFHFDF (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let it snow... Keep. This thing's been here since 2009; if there are problems, fix'em. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam. No notability asserted whatsoever. Creation date of an article has no bearing on the notability of its subject. WuhWuzDat 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wrote the following in WuhWuzDat's talk page, his response was to flush his history, stating that "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject", I would argue with the current state of discussion and the only user with delete comment who clearly does not care, this article should be snowballed for speedy keep, nothing against the user but it just does not feel good when you are trying to be friendly and give and take advise and the party flushes on you! Rmzadeh ► 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, Thanks for your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA), I appreciate your honest comment and will attempt to make it a less of a "steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam" in near future. I would like to argue that while you may have 0 interest in such topic, Wikipedia is a place for information which might prove useful to public, and sharing a search able network of million of records is in the interest of scholars interested in Persian heritage. so is sharing information regarding free open source software and accounting software being used by a thousands of companies. In the article there has been an attempt to be as specific as possible and stick to the facts and the technical side as much as possible. either way I appreciate your honest opinion and will try to improve it.

Please also remember that while you may not care about who put up the article or why, according to Wikipedia, it is wrong to recognize vandalism, the user in question is a very well known abuser of the system in wikipedia Persian with more than 30 closed accounts and ips. Thanks 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)"

Just for the record, my vote still stands. WuhWuzDat 06:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the the 3 edits I "flushed" from my talk page were completely unrelated to this AFD. Now, as my previous edit summary stated, "PLEASE STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH."WuhWuzDat 06:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 flushes were unrelated but the 4th one was not, and I am not putting words in to your mouth if I'm copying your words! "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject". it's in your talk page edit history and I certainly didn't write it. good day Rmzadeh ► 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of a deleted contribution by a sockpuppet, alleging COI, combined with your editing history (>35% related to this article), and your ferocious defense of the article, as well as your thinly veiled attacks on anyone who differs from your opinion , I must ask, Do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest in relation to the subject of this article?. WuhWuzDat 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that disclosing other peoples personal information is against wikipedia rules right? and by putting up the link above that is exactly what you are doing. please tell me according to what guideline do you give your self the right to even ask me that question, for someone with such long history of edits, you should do a review of the rules. for from your first rude comment to your follow up flush to this breaking of the rules, nothing you have done has been in good spirit of a respected Wikipedia editor which i believed you to be. now should I ask an administrator to remove the link above or would you like to do it your self and go study WP:OUTING for future reference?

it's very mature of you to go and propose deletion for all my articles including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park by the way Rmzadeh ► 19:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in my comment, nor in the link I posted, are any mention of anyone's name. This is NOT a case of outing. This was my asking a question, and my posting of the evidence which lead me to ask said question. The question stands (currently unanswered), and I see no reason to remove anything I have written here. If you have no COI, you have nothing to fear by answering honestly. If you do have COI...well, that would be one possible explanation for your attacks! WuhWuzDat 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its spam, and too old for speedy deletion I WILL AfD it, even if written by Jimbo himself. WuhWuzDat 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be found in our discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wuhwuzdat Rmzadeh ► 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep Delete unless notability can be referenced. There are claims in the article that seem to suggest the company may be notable, (that they developed a major software application used in Iran, and created the first locally developed software of certain types) but they are completely unreferenced. I'm withholding an outright delete vote to see if anyone can establish notability with refs. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the sockpuppeting, and the revisions to the article, changing to Keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete without prejudice.~~ I'm torn on this one. The nominator gutted the article before sending it to AfD. While he did take out some clear spam, he also took out some references. They may not be in English, so it's hard to assess them. I agree with Seb az on principle: fixing the article would be a good approach. Unfortunately, I also agree with Wuhwuzdat's assessment of the article's current condition. If the article can be fixed right now, fix it (and let me know so I can reconsider my recommendation). If the easiest approach is to start a new article from scratch, with NPOV and reliable sources, then I'm in favour of that also. (I.e., my delete !vote is without any prejudice against a recreated, improved article; I would support such a creation, at DRV if necessary.)
And just to air this: yes, the nominator has been indefinitely blocked, which calls into question whether the nomination is in good faith. Based on Wuhwuzdat's comment, however, there is a good-faith call for deletion of the article, so I do not think that the status of the nominator should affect the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though just to add this: said nominator has been creating sockpuppet accounts; the history of the article will reflect a number of reverts due to block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, keep with option to re-discuss in a few months. I think there are sources out there that need more vetting than the week-long course of the AfD can allow. The tampering with the article and this AfD by a string of sockpuppets also leave a bad taste in my mouth; I'd rather allow some time for thorough investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With Explanation Please be advised user that put this topic up for delete is a clone of the following banned users whom as a personal attack, first cleaned the references and then put up the topic for speedy delete, followed by this.

PERSIAN KNIGHT 2012
PSOILFHJFHFDF
Asjdirkfjhvciocui
94.182.108.127
Ajlakdjdklajskldaaa
KACLLSJSHDHDH
POLICJHSSHSAAAA
LOL2010197383
KIOKOSHIN 2001918
JACK STEVENSON JUNIOR
Ali Hasibi
..... users as been blocked here or in wikipedia farsi (last updated 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I was on patrol on wikiedia persian yeasterday where I am also active, this user by name of PERSIAN KNIGHT 2012, was doing extreme edits to many of the religious articles, deleting parts of them, removing notable links, and putting removal, notability tag on them. I, among others, followed his work and reverted as necessary. after a few reverts I gave him a friendly warning at which time he started going against me and my articles in wikipedia farsi. After being rude and attacking me and administrators, he was banned by administrators, first for 2 hours, then upon bypassing, for 1 month, followed by 3 months. this user has been attempting to personally attack me ever since. he then started trying to get rid of all my edits including this 2 year old article.

putting the personal intention on this attack aside. this article is regarding a very well known Software Company in Iran, which manages a network of more then 500 bug libraries and data centres, acts as document search engine, and has a digital repository of more then 12 million Iranian books and documents, digital and physical. this article has been mentioned in Iranian new channel over and over, and is used by more than 1 million users daily.

Thier accounting software is the 2nd best known in the country with more then 3000 clients and active users. they also offer open source portal which is based on dotnetnuke which is free to be used, and currently more than 700 Persian websites run on this portal.

This article was discussed in detail 2 years ago for notability and it was decided that it was notable enough at the time, now if you wish to entertain a personal attack by a bad user, I will be glad to increase the sources. just because it is not an english based company, it does not make a non notable company.

thank you. Rmzadeh ► 21:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The issue here is not the motive behind the nomination, nor the sock puppeteering, nor actions by anyone outside the English language Wikipedia, nor even the age of the article itself. The issue to be decided here is the notability of this articles subject. WuhWuzDat 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and also verifiability. There are three references that, based on URL, appear to be independent. Two return errors; the third is in Farsi(?). While foreign-language sources aren't disqualified, it's hard to assess the article based on what's in there. Were there coverage of the company in English-language reliable sources, it would be easy to assess the notability of the article and verify the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your requested updated sources in English. you are right, most of the sources are 2 years old, I will update shortly, but one thing to remember is that the company it self is a persian company, and it has so far decided to only operate in Persian, their website is only Persian as well. they have an old English site that has not been updated in a decade, not sure if it still exist. this however does not make them any less notable. I can refer more than 100 persian articles, news agency, and even share news media files (which I will shortly). here are a few worthy sources in english just searching in google.

The following article written by Professor R.Fattahi in Iranian Journal of information science and technology refers to nosa in page 36,37. claiming that "One major step towards developing sophisticated databases with more search/retrieval capabilities has been to integrate online thesauri in the interface of database. NOSA's software is a successful example of such trend. In addition to records retrieved in NOSA, all broader, narrower, and related terms are displayed and a user can modify his/her search with a new term suggested. This hypertext environment makes it easy for user to navigate related records in database. This is a great achievement in Iran which can be exported Internationally." source : [7]

The following article in Emerald written by scholars, titled "The development of union catalogues in Iran: the need for a web based catalogue" is a full text English article which states "Software development corporations started to develop library web-based software and OPACs were developed in Iran. Nowadays, many Iranian academic libraries and most research and public libraries provide OPAC services on their websites. OPAC developments underlined the need for online union catalogues and two Iranian main software development corporations, Pars- Azarakhsh and Nosa began to design some online union catalogue projects. These are:

...
Simorgh Union Catalogue is a web-based union catalogue which can provide users with simultaneous access to 50 academic and special libraries to search their information resources via the internet. The member centers must have Simorgh Library Software, (Alidousti and Hajiazzizi, 2006) ([www.nosa.com/simwebclt/WebAccess/SimWeb Portal.dll?LANG=2]).
..."

Source: [8]

The dollowing article written in Journal of Information Sciences and Technology by Tayabeh Shahmirzadi * and Sirous Davoodzadeh talks in detail about importance of this software in Iran, sadly the full text is in persin but there is a short description in english. Source: [[9]]

Finally here is a list of current online users with english documents in NOSA's network, look at the name of companies available, such as Iranian oil company, Iranian broadcasting company, and most of the big universities here [10] and I do also invite you to run a quick english search in the there or beter yet, here [11] for any english topic of your liking.. you wont be able to understand most of the result, but it will bring you the title.. the link to it's digital copy in nosabook, or google if one exist,and all the detail in dublin or MARC format as well as the current holdings in all of it's centres.

If you still don't think it's important enough, let me know and I will dig up live news reports fro IRINN (Iranian broadcasting association's news agency) and you can watch it. although it will be in Persian but it should at least show notability! Thank you Rmzadeh ► 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - This article has been out there since 2009, it is a somewhat long reading article, if there are problems within the article, it should be improved, the article itself shows that it is notable enough even not being an american company. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but despam - notable enough to remain, needs some despamming though. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:DENY. Discussion related to article improvement can continue on the article's talk page as AfD is not for cleanup. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With an almost guaranteed keep, I am currently working on cleaning and properly referencing the article as discussed in the opinions of editors regarding sources and improvements. :) Rmzadeh ► 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spamming and not notable enough to remain. Persian language Sources not reliable. Kaaveh (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your opinion but how are primer Scientific journals and professional news articles not reliable? in any case, here are a few more Persian sources from news channels and scientific journal articles [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Rmzadeh ► 06:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Fillhart

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

Non notable songwriter/singer. DimaG (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a lot of material removed from what the creator started with, but even looking at the expanded article (which read like an ad), there isn't much assertion of notability, and what is there is unreferenced, so fails anyway. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked news google archives, and came up empty. It's tough for musicians to promote a career, but no reiable sources means no article.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Baker

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

Originally PROD'ed on the grounds that this football player/manager has never played or managed at anywhere near professional level, only having been a youth team player at a pro club and manager of a few fairly low-level semi-pro clubs. PROD was removed with (as is usually the case) no explanation whatsoever..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication this person meets WP:GNG, and he has not played or managed professionally. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Care - I removed the prod. I did not do so "with no explanation". I followed the wording of the prod banner, and put this on the talk page, where it still is:

I know nothing about football, but the suggested deletion (which I have commented out) implies that Notability can only be based on professional status. The article describes a perfectly normal dedicated amateur, who in addition has been important in 'breeding' professional players. I consider that just as notable as some of the anonymous band of boring dullards who happen to earn a living by kicking a ball. There seems to be a creeping atmosphere in WP that notability==fame.

I've lived near Grantham most of my life (so far) and regard it as depressing a nest of dullards as you would dare to imagine. If one of them has put some effort into community life rather than feeding his face, watching TV, and breeding more dole bandits, then that might, just might, be worthy of attention. I don't know. But I very unhappy that WP has such a coarse and undiscriminating definition of Notable and think a more discerning approach should at least be considered. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not played or managed in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and hasn't received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I'm sure he is a swell guy, but he is no more notable than I am when it comes to Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page, by JohnCD (talk · contribs). — (Non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude parker elementary

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

Non notable elementary school. PROD removed by creator. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author has blanked page, which can be interpreted as a request to delete. Alternatively, redirect capitalized properly, to school district article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- after my nom, the author blanked the page, which was then speedy deleted by another editor under G7. So I guess this can be closed now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N2222

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

Aside from rather narrow discussion within the world of electronics, no notability as per the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog and every singel semiconductor device ever made are not topics for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia may have indefintely expandable storage space but editor time is a finite resource. Suggest integrate with Transistor instead of having a parts catalog entry for every device. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a contested nomination for PROD --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a BJT, why do you say integrate with transistor? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the large number of references imply there is plenty to be said about the device. The article lists more than just catalog information - it talks about its use in circuits, its common nature as a learning tool, and so on. If all that could be said about a part is basic characteristics, the argument would apply that wikipedia is not a directory, but this one has more than that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See also WP:Articles for deletion/2N3055. Nominator seems to be bulk-listing the transistor articles named by part number, on the grounds that items listed by number are clearly WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I found this one by typing in the part numbers of the half-dozen best-known transistors I could think of, and sure enough, there it was slated for deletion.

Should we next delete astatine, because we already have an article on halogens and although chlorine and iodine are pretty well known, the obscure elements are only listed in what we can describe as standard reference lists (which evidently don't convey notability). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is about the article 2N2222. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to a "List of commonly used transistors." A well known and very commonly used cheap silicon transistor, but I did not find reliable sources with significant coverage of this transistor beyond showing it used in various circuits. Example "Common NPN signal transistors are the 2N2222 and the 2N3904. Both kinds are available in bulk packages of 10 for about $1." in [22]. [23] called it "a very common transistor." [24] called it "the popular 2n2222." [25] called it "a commonly used transistor." Not really "significant coverage," but support for its appearance in a list of "commonly used transistors," for the past several decades. It is one of a handful that every electronics designer and hobbyist is likely to know by heart. Edison (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2N3904 is also listed for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3904. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly used transistors sounds like a useful article, but in-depth coverage of them really warrants individual articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: In-depth coverage would be interesting in a narrow obsessive train-spotter's sense, but since it's not verifiable (no references), it will never be part of the encyclopedia. All we know about the 2N2222 is published characteristics, which is trivial dimensional data and doesn't do a thing to explain why this product was necessary, who invented it, when it was invented, how it was developed, what share it had in the industry, what has replaced it...you know, encyclopedia stuff you can't get from the Digi Key catalog. It's never going to happen and so the article is doomed to be stunted and stillborn; better it should be removed and people spend their editing time on things that can be researched and developed into useful articles. ( I'm surprised some Wiki slacktivist hasn't come along to add this article to Project Physics and Project United States! ) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "trivial dimensional data" belongs in the article (along with the atomic mass of astatine), but I agree that it is indeed trivial.

The point about this transistor, and the IN4001 and the 2N3055, are their widespread use over a long period, in a wide range of applications. That isn't referenced from the data sheets, it comes from their use in the ubiquitous NAD3020 amplifier, their regular coverage in E&WW, their use as exemplars in Horowitz & Hill, the fact that we all had drawerfuls of these particular parts, rather than the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Nuclear EMP: failure threshold and resistance of the protected and unprotected 2N2222 transistor in the short pulse width regime" suggests there is more than just entries in a parts catalogue. As does "Experimental Investigations of Second Breakdown and Noise in 2N2222 Transistors"; etc. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Dingly and 65.93.12.101 SpinningSpark 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have found it gets adequate coverage. Dream Focus 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for "The Most Successful and Widely Used Transistor Ever Developed!." I've added a bunch of sources to clarify how notable it is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Clearly satisfies the GNG.—RJH (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archetypical transistor; the "go-to" small-signal NPN silicon BJT. popularity well referenced. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States who knew a language other than English

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

Delete per WP:TRIVIA. This is a completely trivial list based on perceived language skills. How is "knowing" a language other than English a defining characteristic? Why not make a list of Presidents who did not enjoy spinach or ate steak on Sunday? TM 15:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an interesting article with relevant biographical information about the presidents. There is also List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken. Feel free to make those lists of presidents who did not enjoy spinach or ate steak on Sunday. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERESTING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to read why those arguments are not helpful.--TM 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a very clear reason for List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken, as the language issue in Canada is one of the defining features of the country which has been studied extensively under its various aspects. In the case of US presidents, it appears that this list is there only for trivial reasons. I'll have to take a closer look at the sources first before deciding on a !vote.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...because obviously a president's dietary quirks are no less relevant to the job of being head of state than their linguistic ability? Is that really what the nom is asserting? Keep as relevant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced list. We wouldn't necessarily expect a book to be published dedicated solely to Presidents and Foreign Languages, but it's a common part of political commentary and reporting to note such an ability, or lack thereof and to make comparisons across the history of the office (e.g., Kelly, Nataly (2009). "Caught in the Grips of Linguistic Paranoia". The New York Times. New York City: The New York Times Company. Retrieved 22 March 2010. ("The White House has a time-honored tradition of multilingualism...")). postdlf (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama hates beets, but George H.W. Bush banned broccoli Los Angeles Times, August 2010. High profile American politicians suffer from a saturation of commentary on everything from languages to dietary habits. We need to ask whether it is a defining characteristic. Does the fact that Barack Obama supposedly speaks 'conversational' Indonesian or that Bush Jr. supposedly speaks some level of Spanish define anything about them? It is pure trivia.--TM 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need not ask whether it is "defining", as NO Wikipedia policy has this listed as an inclusion criteria, not to mention that it is highly subjective; the article you provide is not similar at all to the sources that discuss linguistic ability throughout time. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still neutral on the issue. If kept, I think it should be renamed as the title is convoluted to say the least, and the format is not quite that of a stand-alone list. US presidents proficiency in foreign languages might be more appropriate as a title.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't view this list as trivia. Some of the sources cited specifically compare the language abilities of presidents or presidential candidates, and language ability is concievably relevant to the job of president. I know of no policy which requires lists to classify by "defining characteristic", a phrase which is only used to discuss categories, and if we did require such a thing we would probably have to delete clearly encyclopedic things like List of countries with nuclear weapons. WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline for trivia sections and isn't relevant to the question of whether this article should exist. Hut 8.5 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-trivial list based on a characteristic that has been commented upon many, many times throughout the entire history of the country. There have been issues as to how to name it, but that is irrelevant to an AfD and can be handled on the talk page. Further, WP:LISTN states that lists are considered non-trivial and notable if their has been commentary on such a group. That NYT article provided above, and many others, discuss the concept of Presidential linguistic abilities throughout time and how they affected politics, policy, and relations, and cannot be considered as similar to the "broccoli" article, which just talks of two people rather than "Presidents" in general. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What do you call a person who speaks one language? An American. But seriously, folks ... the languages a President can speak has been a campaign issue since Martin van Buren, raised speaking Dutch, learned English as a second language. Presidents nowadays are expected to speak Spanish and at least one other foreign language. Dubya's poor language skills in English and his relatively good skills in Spanish was a political football. This is not merely an interesting list, but a useful article for our core readership - high school and college students who need to learn more American history. I understand why the nom see this as trivial, but this is an odd list that should be kept. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant, but in this political climate I doubt that Spanish speaking skills are encouraged in a candidate, let alone expected. :)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but do away with that awkward title. How about List of multilingual Presidents of the United States? Pburka (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The name has switched numerous times since I first created it, but I think that this may be the best suggested title thus far. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though its name is somewhat weird, it is not a trivial article, and also it does not talks with a trivia way. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but cleanup. I think the article should be converted to proseline because at first glance it does look like trivia. And the title of the article is terrible, btw. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not at all persuaded by the nominator's argument that this is trivia. Postdif's discussion of the New York Times article and Bearian's analysis of the historical significance of the topic are especially persuasive. I commend the original author for developing a well-referenced article on a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TRIVIA does not mean what the nominator seems to think it means. It is a style guideline which counsels against sections in articles containing unrelated miscellania. This article is nothing of the kind because it is an article not a section of some larger article and it has a coherent topic rather than being miscellaneous. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting, well sourced. Maybe improve the title.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - name could probably be improved, but it's a well sourced and encyclopedic list. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bilingual presidents are much more notable in the US than in, say, Belgium...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' It

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

Future show is not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is two press releases from Disney. Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod disputed (removed without comment). SummerPhD (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom and also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Dude seriously by the time we reach a consensus this show will be on the air. Even if the page is deleted it will be back up again in a few weeks when the show airs. Also one press release is from ASTRAL media which own the exclusive rights to many TV stations in Canada, including Family Channel (which is Canada's Disney Channel), Playhouse Disney and the upcoming Disney XD Canada which will premier in June. Astral owns the rights to use the Disney name and show. I also believe the other link is from Leo Howard's official webpage, who is the star of the show. I think you should just let sleeping dogs lie. Jrfoldes (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources to add to the page, please do so. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News search for original title: Wasabi Warriors. Premature. Neither title is mentioned much in news, mostly just that the series was ordered. I would expect more buzz from a series which is (supposedly) airing in 2-3 months on Disney. At this point, there is nothing to prove the show will make it to air, yet alone be airing any time soon. The only thing stated in the current article sources is that the network it would air on, Disney XD, will launch on June 1, 2011. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ℥^nding·start 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Par WP:NBOOK. Deleted as a G7, as the origional creator blanked the page. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Horns of the Highland Stag

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kustom iV

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

Non notable act. One local news report and youtube not a valid ref. Bennydigital (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their only telivision appearance is cited by a youtube article and it doesn't even lay out what the show was.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the bbc report barely talks about the band at all. The most we could say in a referenced fashion is that they exist and this man is in the band. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reasons raised above are enough to clear up this discussion, however there is also another factor. It does not meet WP:BAND. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Mesbahi

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

Fails WP:PROF, notability is not established. Mo ainm~Talk 11:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search for Mehran Mesbahi name on google or other search engines indicates the large number of citations for his work. He is one of the pioneers in the area of distributed spacecraft and networked dynamic systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumi2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on a leading living researcher in control theory and adheres to WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia, WikiProject Robotics, and WikiProject Systems. --Rumi2 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumi2 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are enough sources at Google and Google scholar to make this a decent article per WP:GNG, and he is a laboratory chief, although I'm still not sure he passes WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am finding enough cites on GS to pass WP:Prof#C1. Please will the nominator expand on his reasons for deletion? He does not make them explicit. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - With a preliminary research I've found a lot of sources that reinforces the notability of this Academic figure. The article should reference them and also get expanded. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- not sure if the original contributor can also vote on this- but in any case this person is considered a rather influential researcher in the area of dynamic networks and control so

WP:Prof#C1 definitely applies.--Rumi2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— Rumi2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The 2004 NASA award should satisfy WP:Prof#C2. Dru of Id (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Services

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

Seems to have been created by Special:Contributions/128.59.84.28 for the purpose of linking to the two related external websites. Has had no substantial editing since its creation in 2005. Paid content seems to have been created for the same purpose but has had additional content added since. Should deletion not proceed, it will at least need a different article title (perhaps either Paid service or Pay service). Nurg (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay of original research, essentially a definition, and so general and vague that it gives you a headache trying to figure out what it is on about: Paid services are the not-free electronic commerce of digital services and information goods in digital media. Examples of digital media are for instance the world wide web or mobile media (SMS, WAP). Features of digital services are their usability, applicability and recoverability but not their exchangeability.... Paid services differ from paid content in the way that digital content can be passed on and be used by different individuals. Digital services can be characterized as a right which can be exercised, but not passed on without it being lost. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. My own inclination for this article would be to delete due to lack of notability: shady companies are a dime a dozen, while honest & reputable ones (sad to say) are a nickle a gross. Businesses should have articles in Wikipedia only if they are famous for their effect on the world -- or for infamous notoriety. However, participants are evenly divided over this article, neither side has made an argument sufficient to overcome all objections to keep or delete, & a closing Admin shouldn't allow her/his own beliefs to misrepresent the outcome of a discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge to Action

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

Advert for non notable company (well, the non "hyper trimmed one" was anyway). I have various other concerns but they are known to be hyper litiguous (you can probably google for reasons) - let's just say morally, Wikipedia shouldn't legitimise them by pretending they are something important, when, well, they're not Egg Centric 10:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That the pre-trimmed version may have been an advert is of no relevance - it's only the current version that should be considered here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just to play devil's advocate, would the existence of Google hits that explain how this company is "hyper litiguous" not actually imply notability? And one further thought - it is not the job of Wikipedia to make moral judgments in cases like this. If a company is notable, it's notable, and if it's not, it's not, and that's all we should judge it on - it's not about "legitimising" anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is some moral judgement relevant to Wiki guidelines as I see it, at least on the margin as even the keep voters of this article would agree it is... For example the basic human decency policy or the bio living persons policies. Egg Centric 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above notes. However, worth expanding on litigiousness if there are good refs. Bennydigital (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, I can find no reliable independent sources. Of the two checkable (ie online) ones in the article, the wealthexpoasia.com is duff - there isn't even a searchable site there to look for any reference. The other looks like blatant advertorial, in one of the UK's tackiest tabloid newspapers. The non-online sources are a local newspaper, a local magazine, and a London-based business magazine. I think the latter is probably the only one that might satisfy WP:RS, but we have no idea of what it actually says - don't know if it's proper coverage or just a passing mention (and it's not "multiple sources" anyway). I get quite a few Google hits, but everything seems to be self-published, blogs and forums, or sites that promote stock market trading programs. Some coverage by something like the FT, Bloomberg, Investors Chronicle, etc, would be good, but I can't find any. And so far I also haven't found any sources for the company's alleged litigious nature. As it stands, I don't think it satisfies WP:NCORP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources establishing notability. A Google search was very interesting - there are people associated with this organisation who could clearly earn a living giving advice on Search engine optimisation. A fair degree of ingenuity is needed to find sites that have not been created by this organisation or where it is possible to be confident that the contributions have not been placed by it. There is a recognisable pattern which would not occur by chance. The websites which do contain criticism are revealing in various ways. It is impossible to be sure of anything other than the absolute minimum of facts about Knowledge to Action and its founder and there is very little information that we can be confident is provided from a NPOV or has no COI. AJHingston (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on SEO: I mentioned this on ANI when I was trying to get em removed via prod: the creator of the article (and Greg Secker etc) was frankly bloody suspicious (in terms of wiki-competence versus putative experience) - one imagines that someone with the time and knowledge to do so may be able to dig up a wiki editing ring. But I can't prove it and don't really know where to start looking. (Their other edits were to Jordan Belfort, who is indisputably notable, but on the other hand, not exactly the most legit chap (although I recommend "Wolf on Wall Street" as a hilarious read)).Egg Centric 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough between the sources for a stub at least when searching google news references. The Scotsman calls them a scam. [26], as does the Scottish Daily Record. [27] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful here. It is noticable that The Scotsman is careful not to call them a scam, they are merely quoted in an article that mentions scams, but that is not strictly the same thing, as their libel lawyer will have explained. The Daily Record goes a bit further, but again not something that can be used in Wikipedia. As for being mentioned in national press conferring notability, there is a policy that mere mentions are not enough in themselves. AJHingston (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment in response to said keep and in general First of all I must note my day has been awfully, er, liquid since lunchtime so if this is incoherent nonsense I do apologise - but I doubt it is as I have quite a stamina for this sort of thing. Anyway, I don't see why something being a scam makes it notable... in terms of what they claim to do, bear in mind I'm a trader and the only reason I heard of them is a few weeks ago a friend asked me about them as they were thinking about doign a course and I did a bit of digging... that is to say: if they were really the largest training company I ought to have heard of them. Furthermore, there are no legit training companies that teach someone "to trade" anyway... the legit ones are various subjects and are basically consultancy firms... There are no legit companies who do what this lot do, at best you may get some bucket shop prop idol time thing but that's hardly training... and this lot ain't even that...

So the only way they could be notable is as a scam. Well... if you guys want to adjust the article to be that way, be my guest, and I'll agree with ya - but they will make legal threats, probably. But I doubt they're notable as a scam either, any more than a particualr driver instructor school or time share salesman is.

Egg Centric 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leteisha Simmonds

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

I do not think this chessplayer is already notable. Maybe in a few years when she has won major titles or tournaments, or played in an olympiad, but not now. SyG (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm afraid that national girls' championships are not sufficient for notability, since they are exclusive based on nationality, gender, and age, thus excluding the strongest players. The FIDE rating of 1628 [28] indicates a level comparable to an average amateur tournament player, and while this a good achievement for a 15-year old, it is well below the ratings that the subjects of most of our chess bios have. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect to Sjakkalle, limitation by gender, age, or nationality are not valid criteria for determining notability. If they were, male professional sports, leagues with a minimum age, and leagues with nationality requirements would not be notable either. Byebye, NBA! However, junior nationals are not the top level of play for chess (assuming that chess is governed by the sports notability guideline), and so players won't generally qualify for inclusion. Kate (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Chess is a bit different from basketball and other sports, but I agree that "three restrictions=not notable" is not a test which should be used for professional sports teams! In chess, players of all ages, genders, and nationalities are generally allowed into the same tournaments. Even the most prestigious title of them all, the World Championship, has no gender or age restrictions. The point I was trying to make was that a championship restricted to Australian girls under a certain age excludes all the strongest players, and thus is not strong enough to confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable at this time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ollerenshaw

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - recreate if/ when plays in professional competition for first team or meets notability criteria. Zanoni (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Zanoni (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who hasn't played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and hasn't received any significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dobbs

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

I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources for any of these truck racers, hence I believe that they all should be deleted. The-Pope (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable third party coverage for all five of these gentlemen. Not notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:

They can both be found on http://pickuptruckracing.com/drivers.phtml official website and are both competing in this years championship.

Delete

as neither has competed for more than two seasons. Violentbob (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability isn't temporary - current or past is irrelevant. Is there any significant coverage in independent reliable sources? The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mumford and Briggs both featured on Motors TV when race coverage has been shown over the past few years, need to find actual air dates though which will take a little research. Should be able to find air ates for 2011 though? Please leave them be for 24 hours while I have a look? Violentbob (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I can't find any third party coverage for the series, let alone the drivers. This is club racing for amateur drivers. Nothing wrong with that, but there is never going to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Note that multiple sources are usually required. I'm not sure Motors TV (cable/satellite-only minority TV channel) is really independent of the topic - and if the coverage of the driver is a brief one-off interview, or just in-race footage, I don't see how that can be counted as 'notable'. 4u1e (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. As it stands, the articles are unreferenced stubs, which fail to provide any indication of notability. The question is not 'have they appeared on TV' but whether they have significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Without this, it is impossible to write anything more than the briefest of stubs on them. AlexJ (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hopwood (Martial Artist)

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reliable, non-trivial coverage of this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing that shows he meets the notability criteria for either an author or a martial artist. The article also lacks independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article has links to reputable martial arts publications which justify significance in that field. There are also reliable national UK publications cited. Pwjdawson (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ To substantiate the author's credibility, this topic has references to the author's published works as well as independant coverage in the UK media. Pwjdawson (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article includes reliable, third party and independent sources. Pwjdawson (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please also consider "notable students" as a justification of the subjects own notability. Pwjdawson (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please just vote once and don't list the same reason repeatedly. Since you're new to WP, you might want to check the notability requirements in general (WP:GNG), for authors (WP:AUTHOR), and for martial artists (WP:MANOTE).

Delete I found nothing that shows he meets any of the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While numerically more users are in favor of retaining this, those making arguments to keep it have not presented valid, policy based arguments that back their position. That this group may be notable enough for an article sometime in the future is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Writers

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

Delete. Article about a regional literary co-op, club, or association. None of the references provided mention the group. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article needs significant coverage of the writer's club. At this point, none of the sources provided indicates notability of Walden Writers, and the writers within the group, for the most, lack notability. Cind.amuse 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like this plucky group's response to globalisation and think this the page about this co-op deserves to survive. There are now links to literary festivals they have contributed to. They are an interesting but disparate group. Meeraman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that more material has been added to demonstrate the co-operative's notability and the notability of the authors. It's a Work in progress Troglopedetes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- While information has been added to the article, the sources merely confirm existence of various nonnotable authors. None of the sources establish notability of the organization. Cind.amuse 08:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thiought I'd add to the debate. The group contains influential writers and the fact that the press hasn't picked up on them is more of a reflection on journalists and the time it takes to search out refs than the true notability of the group.... which contains the author of THE book on Children's Lit and several award winners. I think - if allowed - this page will evolve and be a useful contribution. Africawallah (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1st April 2011 2.30pm[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination rationale. This is a walled garden in the making, viz: "The co-operative was set up in 2008 to cross-promote the work of its members, to organise literary events, to exchange information and to give one another mutual support." Whilst not denying that some of the authors in the cooperative may be notable, the SPAs namely Meeraman (talk · contribs), Enrevesado (talk · contribs), Cmulley (talk · contribs), Troglopedetes (talk · contribs), Africawallah (talk · contribs) all seem to be "cross-promoting and mutually supporting". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoPets

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete: at 03:09, 25 August 2010 User:Becritical speedy-delete-tagged it "unreferenced since 2006 (except to the site itself), no indication of notability, meets a7 speedy criteria". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messages from my user talk page:

Hi Anthony. I hope this is the appropriate way of contacting you, apologies for my wikipedia ignorance. I followed a link to your page when I went to the GoPets page today and found it deleted. I know it was a fairly lengthy page at one time (mostly maintained by fans). The service had clear notability -- $14m in venture funding from Liberty and other investors, a Red Herring Best of the Web award, a partnership with MSN Messenger, over 2 million registered players -- and there is quite a bit of external source material to confirm this. I was sad to see the page gone -- I worked as a designer on it in the very beginning and off and on through its lifetime. Is there a way I can help provide the external resources (if I understand the note about its deletion correctly, which I may well not) needed to achieve its notability and undeletion? Thanks very much for any help or advice. Gryphoness (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I saw this because I was dealing with the topic above. Since this article passed an AFD in almost the same content in 2006, and has been around since 2005, I think the better solution would be to improve, not to simply delete. I've moved the article into the Article Incubator, where it can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/GoPets. - Philippe 04:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now back in main-space at GoPets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fixed the transclusion on the AFD page for today, and looking at this [[29]] talk page, I see links to [[30]] and [[31]] both of which seem satisfy WP:N. Monty₈₄₅ 08:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have received a fair bit of coverage, I think. No? /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... what Fetchcomms said. - Philippe 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – satisfies WP:N; Fetchcomms just strengthens my point. —mc10 (t/c) 04:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zynga. Minimal sourced content, available coverage appears to be fairly superficial. Meets WP:MERGE criteria #3 'Text' (assuming the article is reduced down to what is WP:V) & #4 'Context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fetchcomms. I don't see the relevance of Hrafn's comment as to how much of current content is sourced, the issue is whether the subject is notable and verifiable, not whether the article is ready for GA status which it patently isn't yet. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Minimal sourced content" = most of the article is not "verifiable". This is not a requirement for GA status, but the mimimum standard for inclusion on Wikipedia (per WP:V). Oh, and "per Fetchcomms" = 'per a small handful of mediocre sources giving minimal coverage' -- hardly a compelling reason for a 'keep'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is still Verifiable not verified. Crucially "in practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". If something has minimal sourced content that is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. As for whether Fetchcomms sources are mediocre, I'm not sure whether by that you mean to challenge their reliability or their significance. Please explain why you consider them "mediocre". Ϣere SpielChequers 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most would consider an AfD to be a 'challenge' -- but if you want explicit tags for the purpose, then I'm happy to provide. If an article has only "minimal sourced content" (relative to the total) then that is a very good reason to kick the tires -- as it is a good indication that the article may contain WP:OR, incorrect information, uncorrected vandalism, etc, etc. I would have thought that it would be crystal clear that by "mediocre sources giving minimal coverage" I was both challenging the "reliability" and the "significance" of the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this sounds obtuse, but taking one specific source as an example, I'm not familiar with redherring.com, but it claims to have award winning journalists. Why are you disputing the reliability of that particular source? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your example, RedHerring appears more infomercial/cheerleader than disinterested: "Red Herring is a global media company uniting the world's best high technology innovators, venture investors and business decision makers in a variety of forums"[32]. I would certainly suggest that it falls short of a "Mainstream news source" as envisaged by WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you feel about Forbes? "Red Herring used to be a hugely influential magazine".... at about the same time as they wrote about GoPets. - Philippe 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes also provides reviews, in the same collection, of the likes of slashdot and Techdirt, which are not considered to be particularly reliable by Wikipedia. "Influential" does not necessarily mean reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)It was the "a leading innovation magazine;" bit that I thought relevant. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't find clearly self-serving self-descriptions to be particularly "relevant" -- so we'll have to agree to differ on that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt per WP:BLP, WP:SINGLEEVENT, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Girouex

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

Non-notable individual know for a single event. Certainly meets Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. ttonyb (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE IMMEDIATELY! I believe this should be deletable as an attack page since the person in question has been arrested, but is out on bail and has not been convicted. Tony obviously disagrees, and reverted my CSD on the article. I'm not going to argue with an administrator like Tony who can revert CSDs. --Man way 06:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that any user except the creator of the article may remove a CSD, and that ttonyb is not an admin, but he is right. Monty₈₄₅ 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom's WP:SINGLEEVENT argument, and Criminal notability Monty₈₄₅ 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shocking but not notable. Borock (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and as a general principle what may have been said by or about an alleged offender concerning a matter which has not yet gone to trial should not be in Wikipedia. AJHingston (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep -- for now. Consensus is clearly for a keep. Yet I must note here that, unless this organization goes on to have a life beyond this one event or its most active members prove to be notable, the ultimate fate for this article will likely be to Merge it into an article like Architecture in Ireland: the article at this time focusses more on current issues the licensing of architectural professionals than on the organization & its activities. -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architects' Alliance of Ireland

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

This article was deleted with the following reasons (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:COATRACK, WP:CSD#G10, and what-not but has been restored with the consent of the closing admin and listed at AFD per a discussion at DRV. As this is a procedural nomination by the DRV closer I take no position on the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original speedy. This organization is a small group of a few dozen people who are dissatisfied that their organization has been denied official recognition by the Irish government, and the article appears to be part of a campaign to have the decision changed. WP:COATRACKery at its finest. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ changed to delete--see below and rewrite--if possible. The organization is important enough to be notable; the despite some rewriting remains highly promotional. To some degree, it has even gotten worse. [33]I shall do some rather drastic cuts to save the article. I hope the principal editor will realize that it would be advantageous for others to edit the article. That's the problem with COI. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article, I am new to this procedure. I have been working hard during the lat 2 days to help preserving this article on Wikipedia. Thankyou to Thincat and to the IP user who helped me this way. The article was the subject of a speedy deletion but my understanding is that it should have been nominated for deletion first. The association is known by every Irish architects even if they do not all appreciate it. It is also well known in the UK and start to be know at European level. To be honnest, I think that AAoI could be the source of a mini revolution in relation to architects' registration worldwide. The article may sound promotional and I am sorry if I cannot perceive it this way. As it seems that I have made things worse rather than improving the matter, I will let you deal with this issue. You have my real name as a user, I do not use a pseudo. You can find my address and you are welcome to discuss the subject in front a cup of tea or coffee. However, I do not know those who are using a pseudo here. You could be someone with interests opposed to this article. This cannot be verified and I am sure that it is happening to some extend. User:stifle who has carried out a speedy deletion of this article, thinks that AAoI is only a group of people who dissided to poison the registration procedure in the ROI. It is obvious to me that they are much more than that.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now quickly dealt with most of it, removing peripheral issues. Some further editing is necessary. But I found the rewriting quite difficult, and am not sure I have succeeded adequately, because it seems there is very little substance to the organization itself, and the article is entirely about the bill to change the registration requirements. If not kept, it can be redirected to the appropriate paragraph in the Professional Requirements for architects article. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "no substance". AAoI is the most influential Irish Architectural organistation after the RIAI. I am very skeptical of what is going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone notice that the RIAI article has no reference at all, except in the Critics and opposition section? One could compare to the AAoI article and wonder which one should be proposed for deletion. Whatever, I note that the problem is always the same. DGG, dispite his good intention, does not realy have the expertise for rewritting the article because he misses expertise on the subject. However, those like me who have knowledge in the subject, experience problems to write about it in a neutral way. Others who have knowledge in the subject do not want people to write about it. I guess that this is a lost cause.--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the RIAI article has problems, but we consider articles one at a time and we haven't got to that one yet.
The reason why expertise in a subject doesn't matter very much on Wikipedia is because our job is to find the reliable sources, read them, and summarize what they say. If information isn't in a reliable source then it doesn't usually belong in an article.
To my mind, DGG's edits have helped the article to comply with our normal rules and guidelines and I'm glad he's put in the work.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that DGG has made some improvement, but at a point I questionned his good faith even if I should not have. Expertise is very important. I revised the changes from DGG because he noted that AAoI members were prevented to practice architecture. This is what the RIAI would like people to believe, but this is not true. He also stated that AAoI members refuse to pass an exam, this is what the RIAI wants the public to believe but this is not true. AAoI members want a fair exam and this is not available at the moment. The Competition Authority of Ireland had Highlighted the conflict of interest by appointing the RIAI as the registration body, the government did not listen and the result is here today. I have read the reference, assisted to meetings and I have summurised the references in my article already. The references are in the article. If I refer to wiki rules on this ground, the articles in national newspapers, the minutes of the JOC meeting (including the presence of 2 actual to ministers and the RIAI)and other mediatic coverage make AAoI significant. --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this article is important to you and I understand why, but I should probably draw your attention to WP:OWN at this point. (I'm not suggesting that you've breached it, I'm just providing a signpost.)—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that I should not have revised the article after DGG dispite his misunderstanding of the situation? Shall I restrain myself from reinserting some information removed in the critics section, even if they are relevant and referenced? I cannot hide that I am interested in the subject. Otherwise I would not write about it. I will not involve myself with any article or whith a subject on wich I do not have either knowledge or experience. I am also new to Wikipedia, these are the reasons for my participation to be limited to a dozen of article. If you check my contrib you will notice that they are all related to architecture or adjacent subjects. THis article was one of my first participation--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC) --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean that at all, and I don't mean any other criticism of you either. I'm only pointing out a rule. It's fine to have an area of knowledge and to edit primarily in that area. There's certainly no problem with correcting an error either. The important thing to understand is that when you reinsert material that someone else has removed, it's a good idea to have a source. WP:V is the relevant rule (and yes, we have a lot of rules: I'm sorry about that. Wikipedia would be even more anarchic without them.)—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... I just expect a fair trial... I will correct any revision that I find inappropriate subject to discussion on this page.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- IMPORTANT . I have called the spokesperson of AAoI to ask them about a Facebook account created with the name of the association and which is directly linked to the wikipedia article. Today the AAoI spokesperson confirmed that this Facebook account was never opened by AAoI and that none of their members have created it. It appears that someone is trying to discredit the association using Facebook. A complaint for stolen identity will be lodged ASAP. I realised the existence of the Facebook account only recently. I guess that this issue may be linked to the review for deletion. It would explain the accusations of using wiki for advertising purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's fairly standard; Facebook has been creating Facebook pages using the text of Wikipedia articles for quite some time now. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I emailled Brian Montaut (AAoI spokesperson) about this facebook page 2 days ago, he was not aware about the existence of the page. He has contacted officers and members to check if anyone had opened it on behalf of AAoI, but no one has admitted doing it. I have also noticed that the account was created on the French Facebook. I was the only French national within the association, I am not aware of any French person being a member of the association today; and even if it was the case why would this person use a French Facebook account for AAoI? Plus the account includes only 2 supporters. Unless everyone left the boat after me back in August 2010, I am sure that they have hundreds of supporters behind them. I discovered today that an account was recently created on "Linked in", I do not know who created it. But it is strange that organisers, officers and other members of the association do not register on these social networks as supporters of the association that they represent. They may not even be aware of their existence.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia and I do not want to sound arrogant, but I think that some editors or administrators should be more accurate when they claim with tags that an article may contain self-published sources? I am talking in particular to Stifle. Regarding your tag about the article being slanted toward Recent Events; AAoI was created early in 2009, but its roots can be traced back to the Building Control Bill 2005. Regarding your tag about this article being biased, on which ground do you make this claim? If the factual accuracy is disputed, then by who? if by yourself, then which are the facts that you find inaccurate? If you fail to answer these questions, then I guess that anyone here, especially me, will have to understand that your reasons for inserting the tags may not be genuine. I am just looking for the possibility to anwer your claims.--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to discuss tagging, but I will answer on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I write as Spokesperson for the Architects' Alliance of Ireland and must begin this commentary by explaining that my experience of the WIKI procedures is NIL. Until now I have been but a reader of Wikipedia articles, using it as a novel resource. If I breach any WIKI protocol here then it is solely because I am a novice in this matter. Nonetheless, I understand that I am not required to write this piece as if it were to be a neutral WIKI article.

I see here a complaint about the Speedy Deletion process that was applied. This deletion does appear to me to have been excessive, not to say pointed, particularly in view of the inherent characteristic of WIKI articles viz being open to repeated editing by all readers.

A specific complaint made against AAoI is that it is merely an aggrieved party seeking recognition for its members under the new law. That belief is entirely incorrect and is also, I suggest, mischievous. AAoI is not an accrediting organisation, it is a lobbying and information group. {http://www.architectsalliance.ie/Membership.html} Therefore, our members stand alone as regards any argument we make for changing the law. Certainly we do speak for the many architects who were disenfranchised by the Building Control Act 2007. {Irish Statute 21 of 2007} According to the intended Registration Body (RIAI Ltd.), up to one third of Irish based architects are unlicensed as a consequence of the new law. {The Irish Independent newspaper: Donal Buckley: 17th November 2009: "One in three people calling themselves architects have no licence to practice. The warning came from the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) yesterday -- as it said up to 1,000 people claiming to be fully fledged architects were not licensed."} I should point out that the Statutory Register of Architects in Ireland was officially launched on the 16th November 2009. On that first day, all members of RIAI Ltd were automatically placed on the Register. No-one else could apply until February 2010, let alone be assessed for registration (licensing). So of course all non-RIAI Ltd members instantly became unlicensed. {The delay is evidenced in an RIAI Ltd audio recording of a formal Information Meeting held in December 2009 and by those present. Attendees were told that it was policy to make audio recordings in order to pre-empt misunderstandings and disputes. When later challenged, the damning admission of the delay was denied, RIAI Ltd adding that the recording had been lost.} Although I cannot verify the figure of 1,000 given by RIAI Ltd. (the AAoI mailing list now extends to 300+), it does match a figure that can be accurately extrapolated from a report by the Architects' Council of Europe. {The Architectural Profession in Europe - A Sector Study Commissioned by the Architects' Council of Europe - 18th December 2008: Table 1-1}.

It is important to understand that prior to the Act, these 1,000 souls were legitimately making their livings as architects in Ireland. Many AAoI members have traded thus for over 20 years and some for over 30 years. To use the European expression "the profession was unregulated", just as it remains today in some countries e.g. Japan and Denmark. {For all such European States see the European Commission's "Evaluation of the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC: Experience Reports from National Authorities with regard to Architects: September 2010}. Furthermore, our status continues to be endorsed by the Law Society of Ireland, despite the Act. {Law Society Gazette: Jan/Feb 2010: p.52} In fact AAoI adopted the Law Society’s “Ten-year Rule” in order to identify bona fide self-trained architects. It is this category of practitioner that has been indisputably disenfranchised by the new law. It is worth noting at this juncture that disenfranchised architects also include those with EU compliant architecture degrees, not alone the self-trained and the alternatively-trained (such as the well qualified author of the article in question). {Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications: Table V.7: Ireland} We are presently urging the European Commission to declare the “anomaly” unlawful. {Directorate General Internal Market and Services: ref. CHAP (2010) 3404 - Ireland} Three of the EU recognised Irish qualifications are for university degree holders. The fourth is membership of a private organisation - RIAI Limited. Now only the fourth is recognised under the new Irish law. This unsavoury and harmful fact is a reminder that under the Act, RIAI Ltd is the intended Registration Body for all architects in Ireland. The following extract is from Ireland’s Competition Authority’s website (embolden text is as published):- Report on the Architectural Profession

Our report (published March 2006) recommended that the new regulator for architects should be independent of the profession. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not accept this recommendation. Instead, the RIAI, the largest professional representative body for architects, was appointed as the new regulator.

The Minister has implemented other recommendations in the report that reduce the conflict between the RIAI's role of representing its members and its statutory roles of protecting consumers and regulating architects. {http://www.tca.ie/EN/Promoting-Competition/Market-Studies/Professions/Architects.aspx}

Although AAoI is not an accrediting organisation, we are recognised by the Irish Government as a representative body for architects. In 2009 and 2010 we were invited to meet Cabinet Ministers, Shadow Ministers and Backbenchers from every Party. We achieved considerable cross-Party support for correcting the Act. We secured a hearing with the relevant Parliamentary Committee and, on our insistence, RIAI Ltd was invited to participate. {Environment Joint Oireachtas Committee Meeting 18th May 2010} We were later championed by a former Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann (Speaker of the House) who tabled a Private Member’s Bill for the addition into the Act of a “Grandfather Clause” for disenfranchised architects. {The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010, no. 41 of 2010} A subsequent Motion to endorse the Bill received unanimous support at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party (the major Party in the coalition government). {Proposed by Deputy Máire Hoctor and Seconded by Deputy Michael Kennedy} The Bill had its First Reading but was extinguished with the calling of a general election this year. In Europe we are on the European Commission's register of interest representatives. {ID number: 91708294194-42}

Accordingly, I reject as unfounded and ill-researched, Ms/Mr Stifle’s assertion that:- “This organization is a small group of a few dozen people who are dissatisfied that their organization has been denied official recognition by the Irish government.” Further, the criticism is so subjective as to suggest a need to examine his/her motivation in this instance.

In refuting Ms/Mr Stifle, I have outlined some of the difficulties we face in achieving fair treatment under the law and it is appropriate therefore that I summarise our objective:-

AAoI hopes that “Grandfather Architects” will be treated under an amended Part 3 of the Act no better and no worse than “Grandfather Surveyors” are already treated in that same Act. {BCA 2007: Parts 4 & 5: S.36(2) & S.50(2) -Quantity & Building Surveyors respectively}

In closing, I will quote from my letter published in the April 2010 edition of the Law Society Gazette (page 15):-

The following extract from John Bull’s Other Homes (Murray Fraser, Liverpool University Press, 1996) is informative.

The RIAI was formed in 1839. Membership stood at about 65 architects in the 1880s and this barely rose to around 100 members in the period just before the First World War. The business of the RIAI was riven from the turn of the century by a growing division with a splinter association in Belfast, the Ulster Society of Architects, and by a fruitless obsession with the idea of securing compulsory legal registration for the use of the title ‘architect’.

A second informative extract is from Wikipedia, ‘Architects registration in the United Kingdom’. Although about the longer-established UK system, its arguments are readily transposed to Ireland:-

In relation to statutory protection of title, three aspects in the field in which architects practise invite examination. In summary:

The design quality of the built environment: This is essentially a cultural concern which was and remains one of the principal reasons for the formation and continuance of the Royal Institute of British Architects as a chartered body. It has connotations not only for the United Kingdom but worldwide. It is beyond the ambit of statutory protection of title.

The technical sufficiency of buildings: The public interest is secured in the United Kingdom under building regulations and other enactments. This too is beyond the statutory protection of the title ‘architect’.

The business of architectural practice: Contracts of engagement for professional services are always between a business entity (whether individual, firm, partnership, or company) and the client, and are governed by the general law, including consumer protection legislation where applicable. Protection of the title ‘architect’ for business entities is of no practical relevance for securing the performance of architectural services.

In the light of experience since the inception of the register under the 1931 act, and more particularly under the Architects Registration Board’s regime from 1997, the recurring question has been whether protection of title serves useful purposes in respect of the three aspects mentioned above.

My commentary is intended to serve two purposes (i) addressing Ms/Mr Stifle’s condemnation of the article and (ii) illustrating a portion of the large quantity of AAoI data that is inappropriate to WIKI which the author had to negotiate in compiling his article. I hope you will now feel he did the job rather well and that WIKI’s parameters can be completely met through supporting publication followed by editing in the normal, accepted and tried fashion. {All documents referenced herein may be found at www.architectsalliance.ie via the DATA page}

Brian Montaut, Spokesperson, Architects Alliance (of Ireland) 29mar011 XArchitect (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — XArchitect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I came to this article when it was at DRV when I had no knowledge of the article or any of its subject matter. Since then I, along with others, have made substantial edits in an attempt to make things more encyclopedic. I think the polemics are now carefully ascribed to the organisation described and do not amount to an "attack page" or a "coatrack" although real-world mudslinging seems to have been going on from both sides. This makes it not possible for me to assess neutrality although I do not think in its present state it is an unreasonable description of the organisation's position and it does have adequate counterbalancing material. Regarding notability, the organisation has had significant coverage in the press, now better cited, but what impressed me most was how a committee of the Irish parliament clearly took the organisation, along with the RIAI, as representing two important strands of architects' opinion in Ireland. So, I think the article is worthy of being kept, with discussion continuing on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly promotional. The only way to get a decent article will be to have it rewritten from scratch, and for the representatives of the organization to be prevented from editing it, due to their unacceptable conflict of interest. I made an adept at a evenhanded article not giving undue emphasis to the organization's position, and was reverted. I have no particular interest in the society, or the profession in ireland. The material provided here by XArchitect amounts to further advocacy, using this page to inappropriately argue for the reasonableness of their position, which is irrelevant .The current article just as the original one is pure advocacy. The size of the organization is minute; it exists to promote a piece of legislation and for no other purpose. The article does the same. I must admit I get rather discouraged when I try to work on an unacceptable article to improve it to acceptability, and argue for it on that basis, and the sponsors of the article insist on making it unacceptable again. This is the opposite of the purpose of Wikipedia. If it were not for the deletion review, I would simply delete it under speedy G11. I apologize to ~~Spartaz~~ Stifle for objecting to his earlierspeedy. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle not me, I closed the DRV, Stifle speedied the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, deletion isn't the answer to a content dispute, DGG. If unacceptable content's being introduced then page protection might be the answer, though. Edits can be proposed on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about incubation as a compromise solution? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - S Marahall, I do not see it as a content dispute; i see it as straight promotionalism, that meets the g11 criteria of requiring complete rewriting. Further, though there is some indication the dispute might be notable, there is no indiction the association is. DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I have some sympathy with that view. In which case what we actually need here is a redirect to the article on the dispute. I also agree with Stifle that incubation's an option to be considered. But we're here to build content in the mainspace. Also, I promised to edit the article myself during the course of this AfD and I'm conscious I haven't lived up to that yet.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited the article a bit and seeing it in a more developed state, I'll go with keep.—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remixed, Unreleased and Featured

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

Found no reliable sources (other than download links) that would lead people to believe that this is a official release. MaJic (comments go here) 04:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was not officially released by the artist. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable references for this particular release in stark contrast to other similar compilations by the artist which have thorough summaries and notability. Lord Arador (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ℥^nding·start 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" argument that it is enough to be a film actor is not in line with the relevant notability guideline at WP:NACTOR. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Löfberg

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

Only 1 source to the Swedish equivalent of IMDb. Fails WP:BIO. Both of the movies he was in had no high calibre awards or praises. (Fantasporto and Screamfest Horror Film Festival) Bluefist ^talk 23:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was in two films that might not meet the notability standard themselves (will need to look into that). No major awards, seems a minor indie actor who fails WP:NACTOR Seaphoto^Talk 23:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a film actor defines a person with roles in "films". This actor has had roles in films. Its not relevant if the films themselves recieved praise or not. I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia defines an article with coverage in "sources". This actor has not had coverage in sources. It's not relevant if the coverage was praise or not. I say delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Löfberg is in the swedish database of actors. So he is an actor.. the article doesnt claim anything else. Successfull movies or not...he is still an actor.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Working in a profession is not an indicator of notability; a good example is that writing a book does not make one a notable author. Please see the Wikipedia notability guide for actors. Seaphoto^Talk 08:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont buy that.... In that case any actor that arent in a blockbuster american film is an NON-actor. Wikipedia isnt America is the world. This is a Swedish "actor"....the article doesnt claim anything else. He has had roles in two Swedish movies, which atleaat one of them was a success in Swedish cinema. I still say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the notability standard says that an actor must have been in multiple notable films; nowhere is there anything about these being American. There is no argument that the gentleman is not an Actor, of course he is. The question is whether he meets the Wikipedia threshold of notability for Actors. If you disagree with the standards of WP:NOTABILITY then the place to make your argument is the talk page of that standard, not here.Seaphoto ^Talk 00:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jabicombe

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

Tempting to list it for CSD as purely promotional. Since CSD is supposed to be only for undebatable situations, however, I'm going to list it at AFD instead. As well as being highly non-neutral, all claims are unsubstantiated, and I have been unable to find any real significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search shows mostly youTube videos, no news coverage. Search for real name shows no results at all. Without references, there is no credible assertion of notability. Seaphoto^Talk 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it if you want, but it would be better to leave it to allow others to contribute and fill in some of the blanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaalvar (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no coverage in news sources, and lots of videos posted on various sites, I would agree with the nominator, and specially due to its tone, that the article is promotional. Currently unsalvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tukannguaq Dahl

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

Mayor of Itilleq, a town in Greenland with a population of 112. Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't held any signficant enough positions to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and pending any foreign language sources that I can't find, there doesn't seem to be enough to meet the WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't pass the relevant notability criteria. Google does show a few foreign language sources and Google Translate doesn't seem to cover Greenlandic but they appear to be official documents such as minutes of council meetings which aren't sufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 12:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in Europe 2011-2015

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

Totally useless newly-created "fork" of List of 21st-century earthquakes, that has a completely arbitrary and meaningless inclusion criteria. 4.0 on the Richter scale, please?! Category:Lists of earthquakes and its sub-category show how earthquake articles are dealt with. By country and particularly active region (which Europe is not obviously), and articles by time period. Yet remarkably this article manages to extend the types of earthquake we generally docment, and split it down by region and time period. O Fenian (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that this is an unlikely way to split up recent earthquakes - full of non-notable events. Mikenorton (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5.0 seems to generally be the standard for earthquake notability, absent a claim that an earthquake smaller then that was the largest recent earthquake in an inactive region. As such this seems like it is mostly a list of non-notable earthquakes and should be deleted. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Smalls

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

Another non-notable struggling independent: WP:UPANDCOMING but not ready yet. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Webisode producer, no indication of notability. Watched the first episode, it wasn't that bad. But he doesn't meet the bar for producers. The Interior (Talk) 12:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This is an article on a technical subject few Wikipedians can be expected to understand, but I believe the majority got it right in this case. Not only does a separate article give undue emphasis to one portion of the biochemistry of Alzheimer's, it doesn't even provide a description which is understandable to reasonably intelligent non-experts -- like me. I am willing, upon request, to recreate this article in userspace for the specific purpose of merging its contents into another existing article.

BTW, when I looked at the article Abductive pointed to below, I found it tagged as a PROD; I removed that tag to force an extended debate over that article. The problem with subjects like these is that we non-experts are forced to rely, perhaps too far & with too much trust, on the word of experts: we need to be educated so we can spot these problems & intelligently resolve them on our own. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease

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

Appears to be an incomplete essay, not clear why this should be the topic of an encyclopaedia article, especially as ketoglutaric acid or keotglutamate don't merit a mention in Alzheimer's disease or Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease. The creator seems to be developing a longer original "research paper" version in their own user space, leading me to that this was intended to be in the same vein. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move into the userspace page and delete; point editor to OR and RS policies. –SJ + 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR. See the link below. Anarchangel (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Userspace version should also be deleted; Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, publisher of original thought, or scientific journal. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific journal" appears, in a way, in NOT. However, it appears as a reason for inclusion, not exclusion: "If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS". Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Keep ((I missed the link to Essay, but I show that is not true, see the link)) Please do not vote on things that you do not understand. I am flabbergasted that nom should consider the inclusion in Wikipedia articles to be the defining limit of scientific understanding on an important medical topic. The first paragraph agrees in every detail (the points shown more or less in reverse order, ie the article mentions mitochondrial dysfunction first and then α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase role) with Pharmacological mechanisms in Alzheimer's therapeutics A. Claudio Cuello, page 196. Anarchangel (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually a biochemist who thinks that we are trying to write an encyclopaedia rather than A Description of the World's Scientific Research, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume my nomination originates from a position of ignorance. Yes, of course other Wikipedia articles aren't the "defining limit of scientific understanding" - but our scope does not reach out to the "defining limit of scientific understanding". We need to consider what the "defining limit" an encyclopaedia's coverage is. The article falls outside it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your limitation of WP articles to the content of other WP articles dumbs WP down; that seemed an awful lot like the actions of someone dumb. Now I find that you ought to know better, but still want to dumb WP down. WP is lacking in contributions from a solid science background; we need well-schooled deletionism like a hole in the head. But enough of this assertion and contradiction; it is time to show your hand. I don't think you have anything. Set up your rationales according to any WP rule you choose, and I will knock them down, as I have your claim that it is an Essay. Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about deletionism, it's about giving subjects appropriate coverage. What is the content of this article? It has some information about Alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase and some generic info about Alzheimer's disease - the only part of this article that is actually about Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease is the section entitled "Studies". I can see why the research mentioned here might merit a mention in Alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase or Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease but it would be giving it undue weight to devote an entire seperate article to it. On finding a separate article devoted to the subject, people might think that there was a significant connection between Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease, when in fact we simply have, to quote the article, some preliminary research indicating "α-KGDHC may be involved in AD pathogenesis through increased mitochondrial oxidative stress, making it an interesting research target". As I said previously, this is an encyclopaedia - we're meant to help people access information, not confuse them by presenting them with entire articles on every piece of scientific research ever conducted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might be confused by your reframing of deletionism as appropriate coverage, or your conflation of reader's assumptions with assertions of undue weight, too, but Wikipedia's rules for deletion are not based on what errors its readers might make. Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. This is not how we organize encyclopedic content. The page could be moved to Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree with Anarchangel.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is either original research or much too detailed coverage of a particular aspect of this disease's biochemical nature; research at this level of detail is impenetrable to the layperson and belongs in a research paper, not in a general purpose encyclopedia. The fact that this substance may have some relevance with respect to Alzheimer's disease can be mentioned in a relevant article if it is reliably sourced. Sandstein 06:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. the article has reliable sources. Is written in a good way. "Much too detailed" shouldnt be a reason for delete. Isnt that a positive thing?:)--BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Content Fork, and stinks of Original Research. There is also an article The α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex in Alzheimer’s Disease along this same vein. Users who wish to advance their research on Wikipedia should seek consensus to add this dubious material to Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease. Abductive (reasoning) 10:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rename as suggested. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Birth, Death, & Burial of Israeli Leaders

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Places of Birth, Death, & Burial of Israeli Leaders

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

I cannot see the point in this article and previously prodded it with the suggestion that the information (at the time only related to Prime Ministers) could be merged into the List of Prime Ministers of Israel. The prod was removed without explanation, and the list enlarged to include Presidents (which could also be merged into the relevant list). Number 5 7 09:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful list which enhances the encyclopedia. Perhaps this needs to be renamed List of vital statistics of Israeli leaders or some such. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into List of Prime Ministers of Israel - not really necessary to have a separate list for this. --- — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic is notable and it provides important information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per encyclopedic material but definitely rename: Places of birth, death and burial of Israeli leaders. There's no need for CAPS, the serial comma or an ampersand.—Biosketch (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Biosketch. Cymru.lass's suggested merge has merit, but after scrutinizing the existing lists, I'm inclined to think that the merge can't be done without making the single list too confusing. In any event, that's a discussion that could be had after the AfD closes, and should in any event result in a keep here to preserve the edit history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herping

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

Original research, no sources, prod removed without any attempt to improve the article, article tagged with multiple problems for two years, this article is no different from the Graving article which was also deleted - it's basically a made up word used only by a limited number of enthusiasts. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, while the current state of the article is no doubt poor, that's reason to IMPROVE it, not delete it. Shocking as it may be, most of us have a lot of real, actual work to do, and cannot drop everything for every article in need of attention.

Second, the comparison with "graving" is disingenuous. Googling "graving" yields next to nothing, other than a synonym for drydock (which is a strong case for merging). In contrast, googling "herping" yeilds a plethora of links to an activity which has no real synonym.

Third, just because it's used in a small group of enthusiasts doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Do I seriously need to point out how many pages of obscure Star Trek trivia exist on WP? What's your criterion for how many people a group needs to have before their terms are "notable"? Because I suspect that criterion is more than met by the billion-dollar-a-year reptile trade.

I was under the impression WP was supposed to be a reference, a place people can go to look up terms or get information. How is that served by deleting the very *name* of an activity which hundreds of thousands of folks in the US alone engage in regularly?

This entire deletion nomination is based on nothing more than "Well, I've never heard of it and the page isn't perfect, so it can't be important, now can it?". Mokele (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude, disingenuous, and entirely improper to claim my AfD nomination is anything other than what I stated above. I don't put my words in your mouth - so don't put your words in mine. Also note that the edit summery you added when removing the prod tag on the article was insulting. Please refrain from personal attacks. Rklawton (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very rude, not even slightly disingenuous, and perfectly normal to assert the character of a nomination. "Your personal lack of knowledge" is a natural reaction to not being able to comprehend another's point of view; it is akin to things I wrote years ago, when I first started, and I used to wince over real or imagined slights like the rest of the WP:NPA warriors, too. It was not hard to give up either of those things; they are not sound arguments. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, fine, now how about addressing my actual points? Mokele (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point: two years is more than sufficient time to improve an article.
Point: your second point is contradicted by your third point.
Point: your third point is cited as a reason for deleting this article - it's a made up word used by a small group of enthusiasts.
Point: your fourth point belies an apparent misunderstanding. Wikipedia is a reference, but it's WP:NOT a reference for all things. We have requirements for notability, requirements prohibiting the publication of original research, and requirements mandating the use of reliable and verifiable sources. The article in question fails all four points. These are Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and they are what allow us to maintain our reputation as a relevant, reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I haven't even been watching it for two years. And I've got about 300 other pages that *nobody* else seems to want to deal with either, all in just as much or more need of my EXTREMELY limited time, plus the time I need to put in to fighting vandals just to prevent further degeneration. Herping is accurate (based on my own, expert knowledge of the topic), and therefore leaps ahead of some of the other stuff that needs my attention. If you cared, you'd try to fix it, but evidently that's not the case.

There is no contradiction between 1 & 2 - both are about how even a cursory google search reveals herping to be far more notable than your supposed equivalent.

That the term is "made up" is irrelevant. So is "Skydiving", so let's delete that, eh? After all, it's just a made-up word for the hobby of an even tinier group (I'll bet $20, here and now, that there are more reptile keepers in the US than skydivers - I'm not exaggerating when I said billion-dollar industry).

I've demonstrated this passes notability, and the OR claim is false - unreferenced isn't the same as OR. I'll add the references when I get around to it.

Crap like this is why experts like myself so rarely contribute to WP - too many bureaucrats insisting that everything must fit some rule or be perfect from day 1. All I want to do is improve the pages, but instead, I find myself wasting my time with pointless quibbles like this, just to prevent the loss or decay of what information is already there, because of arcane and irrelevant guidelines held up like gospels.

The page is being looked after by an expert, and will receive the attention it needs *eventually*. If that's not soon enough, then fix it yourself. Mokele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mokele's second and third points are not incompatible. The second contradicts the nominator's last phrase in the nomination; the third directly addresses it. It is perfectly acceptable to argue hypothetical points in this way. And nom is dead wrong about reputation. Enough contributors come with the reasonable (and not incompatible with WP rules) rationale that WP should cover subjects of interest (ever looked at the rationale for image files?) only to be obtusely contradicted with the cookie cutter AFD-winning ruleset, and whatever reputation users may claim for WP, the real reputation among contributors is going to be that WP is not a worthwhile investment of their time, and among consumers, that it is lacking content. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[34] There. An entire freaking book, titled the same as the page, in addition to 230,000 google results, over 13,000 results in google books, and even nearly 200 in google scholar. This effectively kills your point on notability, and can easily serve for references. Mokele (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book is a copy of the Wikipedia article. There definitely are enough sources, though, looking at, for example, at the genuine entries on Google books. —innotata 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very clearly a notable subject and the article isn't bad enough to delete it. —innotata 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article need a bit of seeing to, but deleting it would be bad as it covers an important subject. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mokele has more than demonstrated the availability of sources. Remember, AfD is not a method of dealing with imperfect articles. We delete when an article doesn't meet inclusion standards, not when it isn't developed enough. --Danger (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Danger and Mokele. Possible merge with herpetoculture?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs savage editing. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is now the subject of an ANI discussion due to Mokele's attempt to canvass support for his position in violation of Wikipedia's established AfD process. [35]. Rklawton (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't think this is what isn't accepted at AfD. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says that posting to a WikiProject or other collaboration board (as opposed to, say users with a userbox) is acceptable, and should ideally be done with neutral and polite language. I would think that any deletion nomination that could possibly be important to a WikiProject should be brought to its attention. For my part, I did come here after seeing Mokele's post, but I knew about the subject and was pretty sure that it was notable, which I believe a cursory search for sources shows (I should have stated all of this in my rationale). —innotata 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sour grapes much? Mokele (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist with the insults. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I see a half dozen new references in the article. In general, that's a good thing. The problem in these cases is that the references fall into two categories: they're either not from a reliable source (the Free Dictionary), or they're used in violation of WP:SYNTH - that is, they demonstrate that the word exists (which was never disputed), but they fail to support the content of the article. The content is still original research. The bottom line is "herping" doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, though the content (if it's ever sourced properly) might fit into Herpetology somewhere. Here's another way to look at it. Google "herping". Sure, the word exists. But now take a look at the top links - they're all from self-published sources - forums, community pages, and the like. This is exactly like the "graving" article noted above - up to and including personal insults and canvasing fans to oppose the AfD. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including one source from a Government Agency published in 1989?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the other sources from magazines, and those on Google Books? The same thing on Google could be said of "birding" and "geocaching" (to a lesser extent, as other links appear below, and most entries are geolocated ones; I wonder if that gives different editors commenting here different results for "herping" depending on whether there's an group in their area), but these are much more notable. Herping also isn't a perfect fit for herpetology, as it concerns methods for observing and catching etc, which are used in the scientific study of reptiles and amphibians but also by amateur naturalists etc. I don't know why you're still talking about "canvassing fans"—Mokele didn't violate canvassing rules, and the WikiProject isn't exactly "fans" of this—, and why you and Mokele are still trying to keep up your dispute. —innotata 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge, herpetoculture would be a better fit. Although that article looks like a bag of ass.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the source. Does this government source simply use the word - which poses WP:SYNTH problems, or is the source about the word? For example, if the source article is titled something like "Federal Regulations Regarding Herping on Public Lands", then that would be great. Or if there's a reliable source that specifically says something like "herping is the search for reptiles or amphibians" then I'll withdraw this nomination immediately (the user-published "free dictionary" is not a reliable source). However, all I've seen are self-published sources and other sources that use this word only as slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. As far as the OED and Merriam-Webster are concerned, this word doesn't exist - a good indication that this word lacks sufficient notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the title is "Let's Go Herping!" published by the State of PA, and yes, herping is referred to in the article numerous times as one would say "fishing" or "hunting" in a similar context. There are two university published books (Texas A&M and Oxford) which use the term quite often. I'm not lying, they are there in the article for all to see.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with Mokele. I object to his incivility, and I have said so. If he persists, he will find himself blocked from editing - as is the case with all editors persisting in uncivil behavior after repeated warnings. This is a project that requires collegiality and some degree of professionalism, and editors who can not conform are forced to leave for the good of the project. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...rhetoric that is more accusative than descriptive, or using administrative authority as an escalating threat... Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As far as the word, there should be no problems with verifying: this should be what you asked for above. The entry in The Free Dictionary comes from the Collins English Dictionary, and the most common word of this group is "herp", which is much easier to verify; the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't contain plenty of English words.

What you've been doing seems very much like a continued dispute on your part and Mokele's. —innotata 02:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Perhaps the nominator would be willing to withdraw the nomination and WikiProject AAR would be willing to spend the next few days editing the article to bring it up to a C or B standard??? That way the nominators reason for deletion would no longer exist and we dont lose an important article. ZooPro 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article perhaps has a bit too much "How to" and Synth in it, but it's a notable topic - it's a commonly used verb to describe a common pastime (like "birding" as someone suggested above) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is starting to look better. It's been trimmed down considerably, and is fairly well sourced.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Innotata and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the article; it is useful. Fortuitously, it is also sourced and of note. Just playing around; don't use either of the rationales in my first sentence exclusively as they are not sound. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word Workout

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

This seems to be, in essence, an advertisement for a proprietary set of educational workbooks. Aside from the publications of Nancy K. Lewkowitz (who seems to be identical with "Word Workshop", the publisher of the workbooks), I can find only one study that deals with the specific methodology treated in the article; the other references in the article do not appear to be about Word Workshop per se. I'll say that this article violates both WP:NOTADVERTISING and—because of the absence of multiple, independent substantive sources—the GNG. (Note to Googlers: The words "word workout" are used in various other educational programs for vocabulary activities that are unrelated to the topic of this article.) Deor (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deor. Lewkowitz, whose publications are used as most of the references, is the author of the material per this link from Word Workout's official site. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor. The material also looks as if it completely fails Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#cite_note-textbooks-4. I don't see anyway to salvage this article. --Aspro (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robot Powered Machines

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

An article with no sources to support its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The user who started this discussion clearly doesn't understand what factors are important for an AfD, and also which criteria should be followed, which polices and guidelines should be mentioned and which one shouldn't. With an edition this article could be well sourced, well written and could meet several policies required even for a good article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a personal attack, also not a non-courtesy comment, I noticed how he nominated some articles, and to address these details to this discussion would be relevant to its conclusion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article contains no sources and consists of nothing but trivia. Notability requirements are not met. I notice someone has suggested a merge but this is not appropriate because a) there is no usable content to salvage, and b) the obvious merge target is already full of pointless junk and would not benefit from having more. The Keep vote above is invalid because it focuses on the character of the nominator and not the substance of his argument, which in this case is 100% correct. Reyk _YO! 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eduemoni. Not really any valid reason for deletion. Stickee (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "There are no sources to be found" not a valid reason for deletion? Reyk _YO! 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case, the lack of sources is of more concern than usual. I note that the article's creator was blocked indefinitely for disruptive edits and vandalism [36], which makes me question the statements made in this article. The alternative is to assume that the author has all of these in a toy box and wrote the page from the backs of the packages. It's had the unreferenced tag on it for more than a year; and I don't see that anyone here, myself included, wants to fix that. Like ReykYO, I think that WP:V is a pretty valid reason for deletion. Mandsford 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a bot that creates endless trival transformer articles? There are no refs. Szzuk (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Masterpiece

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

An article with poor "sources" to support its questionable notbility. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article doesn't mention it, but ToyFare magazine called Msterpiece Optimus Prime the best toy ever. (The llink seems dead, though.) However, I don't know if that actually counts for anything much. NotARealWord (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume then that you will be removing the Transformers: Alternators article, Transformers: Alternity, Transformers: Universe and so on, because it has the exact same notability as all of those. If it's insufficiently sourced, then LABEL IT SO. Do NOT misuse deletion if you do not understand what it means. BTW, ToyFare's Best Toy Ever is mentioned.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though not sourced, this is not a reason to delete, with a search through the internet I could find enough notability for these toy line. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been long established that sources such as these [37] aren't independent or reliable and in all this time nobody has produced reliable or independent sources to prove otherwise to support this continuation of keeping this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the topic of this article (note the name, take it literally) I'm leanin' more towards keep since I'm guessing that it's just a victim of bad writing/editing. However, I'm afraid that it'll just stay bad if it's kept. NotARealWord (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eduemoni. Referenced non-trivially in magazines. Stickee (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volt (Transformers)

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

An article with no sources to support its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a malformed ref tag in the article, which I've corrected. Is there anything more specific than List of Autobots for this to be merged to? Really, at this point in the Transformers cleanup, an experienced nom should have a merge target identified... Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an article called Laser Rods, which was about the sub group of Transformers that Volt belonged to, but it got deleted by the same people now trying to delete Volt. It would have made more sense to merge all the Laser Rod characters into a single article at Laser Rods, then deleting it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Would not object to userfying it, so maybe a quality list could be created at a later date. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I would also support a merge if it will produce a consensus, although deletion still seems more appropriate to me. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Autobots. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Autobots or another Transformers list that's more specific, per nom. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jew

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

Photographer of doubtful notability, sources all seem like local business/PR pieces. Also, article is written like an ad. Author removed my advert and notability tags without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tried to read this, but the spam was asphyxiating. Example: he was also given the distinct honor of photographing North America’s largest concave fresco. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Kim Jew Wikipedia entry does not have any issues that would make it a candidate for deletion. The article uses a variety of sources, both within the state of New Mexico and throughout the United States. The sources cited are not PR pieces, but legitimate news stories crafted by journalists, not Kim Jew himself. The breadth of sources shows that there is significant coverage of Kim Jew as a photographer; the sources of publication show that they are reliable; the sources of publication are written from a third party perspective—they are not written by Kim Jew; the sources are independent of the subject. Based on this criteria, I believe that the Wikipedia entry about Kim Jew should be presumed suitable for inclusion. Additionally, Kim Jew’s notability spans decades…the independent coverage cited is not short-term interest. As far as being given the distinct honor of photographing North America's largest concave fresco....as the official photographer, that is an honor. Of course anybody can go and photograph it now...but Kim Jew was hired as the official photographer of this notable work of art. Not to mention that he has photographed 4 US presidents, many celebrities, famous politicians and has had his work featured in a variety of national publications. I understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion…and this entry does not read as such. It is not advocating people to take an action, it is not an opinion piece; it is written from a neutral point of view, and it is written in an objective style….stating facts about Kim Jew’s life and notable contributions to the field of photography....all of which can be and are documented. And NawlinWiki, I apologize for posting on your wall...and thank you for pointing me to the proper place to have this discussion....truly, I was not aware that I was committing a faux pas by posting there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredniferitz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made changes to the tone of the entry to what I think you might be referring to as "advertising." I did not intend for this to be an advertisement for Kim Jew or the work he does. I think his contributions through photography are notable and deserving of an encyclopedic entry. I felt I’ve obtained a fair amount of references to any claims that are made in the article. If there are any other specifics that I am overlooking please point them out and I’ll do what I can to make the adjustments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. The article tells us: Some of the notable subjects of Jew’s work include former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, as well as President Barack Obama, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Sir Richard Branson, Jay Leno, Dana Carvey, Sophia Loren, Tony Bennett, Miss USA Mai Shanley, and the late Tim Russert. But all of this is sourced to KJ's website. I shouldn't have thought that havving photographed (non-Prez) celebs confers any significance, since they're photographed all the time. Presidents are a bit different though. So where's the independent evidence for this? ¶ Have there been books or exhibitions of KJ's work? -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thank you for your feedback. I think it's different when the non-Prez celebs are commissioning the work (instead of pics on a red carpet or paparrazi shots), but I'm not sure. The presidential photographs he has taken, they were commissioned by both the Republican and Democratic parties. After the photo shoot, they were given digital files, but I do not know how or where they were published. I think his website is evidence of his body of work, which includes presidents and celebrities; if he were claiming the work of another, he would be facing huge legal implications. Also, I have taken out some other information in the entry that might be seen as trying to advertise and added some information to help clarify things. Please tell me what I should do from this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you please tell me why you think this is commercial spam and what I can do to fix it? I really am not trying to create a spammy entry, but an entry that explains the large role Kim Jew has had (and continues to have) in the world of photography. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, seems clean enough now. Stricken. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Outside his website, I'm unable to source the presidential (4) & governors of New Mexico (6) to any WP:RS source, but I don't doubt it; the photos are there, and I was unable to match them elsewhere. If untrue... WP:NLT. Assuming WP:V, it justifies the article of a photographer near the pinnacle of the profession, and I'm hard pressed to think what would top it other than Adams, Audobon, Brady, the photography Pulitzer, or official White House photographer. I'm surprised that Category:Presidential photographers doesn't exist. (belated signing) Dru of Id (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schutzler

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

Cleaned up but not sure if subject fits notability criteria. Seems the only possible claim is being CEO of Livemocha, but does that entitle the subject to a separate article? Also, unsure of reliablity of sources. LordVetinari (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as being CEO of Livemocha, he is the former CEO of Classmates.com, and a former senior executive of RealNetworks and Monster.com. He's been interviewed by reliable sources on business and technology issues many times. His variety and depth of business experience make him notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I think Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherited notability answers that. I also question whether the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. If a person is not notable outside the scope of an organisation, should they have an article outside the scope of that organisation? LordVetinari (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I've ref'd some of this, although the CEOsherpa main page may not be independent, and someone else should remove citation tags after reviewing as I'm still new at this ;). Some details I've left commented out pending verification/further developments (e.g., full book citation). Are Amazon.com author bios WP:RS? Dru of Id (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Toad

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

A very minor English political party with apparently just one member on a local council and no Westminster representation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is very little notability and almost no resonable source of information, but given that the claim is true, then in my mind, it is deserving of a very week keep, for now. Rmzadeh ► 04:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WTF are these people and why should we care? But if they've achieved election, they ought to be included. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to what topical criteria? Notability of organizations is established through meeting the general notability guidelines, of which, Idle Toad has not done. Cind.amuse 03:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy. However, if it's a one-person party, this should be merged/redirected to its candidate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Council membership does not establish notability. To add to that, their candidate has not established personal or political notability either, so no destination article exists. Cind.amuse 03:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst "election does not convey itself notability" is a literal reading of WP policy, assuming that they are thus non-notable would also require the belief that UK elections are held in the secret and the results unpublished. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party has been described in the House of Lords as a "force to be reckoned with". They seem to have had multiple councillors, being more successful than the LibDems in South Ribble. And here's coverage in a national newspaper. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I concede they may not have much internet based evidence for their notability, we are dealing here with a group who have maintained for a decade or more now representation on Lancashire County Council, have beaten mainstream parties in election, and have with their associated newsletters and campaigners "on the ground" a significant presence in the area they represent. doktorb _words^deeds 08:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Look at this link to see a BBC video/audio link to Tom Sheratt and his reasons for forming/being an Idle Toad.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/content/articles/2009/05/06/elections_2009_feature.shtml doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some more, referenced, information. Despite its unusual name, it is a genuine party with local councillors, and there is evidence of notability in the coverage. There is probably more on its formation in pre-internet newspapers. Warofdreams talk 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is no more unusual than "tea party", and you can imagine the (no doubt, heavily armed) ruckus if that was AfD'ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greenfield Advisors. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mundy (real estate)

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

A person who works in real estate appraisal. Where's the notability? I don't see any. bender235 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greenfield Advisors There is enough notability to keep the Greenfield article, but I'm doubtful that Bill Mundy has enough individual notability to sustain a seperate article. Some of the info from Bill Mundy could be merged into the Greenfield article as information about the firm's founder. Monty₈₄₅ 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, Greenfield Advisors barely meets notability criteria either. ~~I'll probably file an AfD for that article as well.~~ Done. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Greenfield Advisors, I don't see any source showing him as the founder of the mentioned group but if he indeed founded Greenfield Advisors then perhaps merging a short history would be a good idea. Otherwise pretty clear shift + delete. Rmzadeh ► 04:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete per the above. No personal notability found outside connection to company. Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originated the article, and I see where it needs some significant "punch up" to bring it up to date. I'll address that in the next few days. Thesurveyor (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G2: Test page, by Versageek (talk · contribs). — (Non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 05:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applied ict 2011

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

essay Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RobApps

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable iphone app company. No secondary sources provided and none to be found on Google news. Previous afd closed as no-consensus due to no one participating, but this article is a borderline nn/promo speedy candidate and should not remain. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how the last AFD didn't get delete votes, there is barely a superficial claim of notability and it is totally unsupported by independent sources. Reads like an advertisement. Surprised no one has tried to CSD it, but I guess with a past AFD it wouldn't be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 03:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA so probable spam.Dialectric (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Relevant sources have been proposed and not refuted. Sandstein 06:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-dubstep

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

Not enough references to support the existence of the genre/notability of the genre. One reference sources the term but I don't think it is enough to make the genre notable. The other reference just simply links to an artist page on BBC. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with dubstep. ℥^nding·start 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another reference here: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13731-maybes-ep-sketch-on-glass-ep/ It seems to be gaining notability, and a lot of the artists under 'post-dubstep' don't fit into the general image of dubstep, and so - while its a stupid term - post dubstep does seem pertinent. 220.239.169.62 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there does seem to be some in-depth coverage out there in reliable sources, in particular this[38] and this[39] and also some briefer mentions[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Siawase (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Bell and the Pixie Hollow Games

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL,verifiability concerns, and the fact that at this early stage I don't see the film as having passed requirements at WP:FILM. I haven't been able to find enough sources to substantiate information in the article. What is strange is that despite being mentioned on Disney's website (though in passing, which is not enough to ~~fulfill WP:RS requirements~~ pass WP:GNG (sorry, half-asleep when i wrote this)), it doesn't have an entry on IMDb. elektrik SHOOS 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I don't see any reason why this cannot be listed at Tinker Bell (film series). Even animated films are subject to WP:NFF. A potential, future film that is not in development with a lot of rumors surrounding it does not warrant an article to itself. Not when there's barely a paragraph of real, sourced information currently. The only reason I don't say "delete" is because the title of the film is a searchable title and it would be better to redirect the title to the appropriate page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bignole. I would think it is in development if it's "coming this fall". unless they are cutting things very fine. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep as new info emerges. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reported premise of this film (a fairy Olympics) roughly matches the premise of Tinker Bell: Race Through the Seasons which (is/was)? scheduled to follow Tinker Bell and the Mysterious Winter Woods. I suspect this film is Race under a different name, with the release order of the two films swapped. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cast lists both included the same typo on Silvermist (now corrected - it's a professional thing; I get twitchy around typos). As the link I stuck in at the bottom lists 'fall' for the release and Epcot seem to be theming the Games at the moment, it could be that the order has been switched. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has recently added a statement to this effect, I find, saying the Woods are now scheduled for Fall 2012. Might be Disney want to get their games in before London.... Peridon (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of this title at the end of this advance DVD review and this credible-looking leaked trailer convince me that it is legit, and is in fact Race retitled. I propose renaming that article to this name when this fact has been verified. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trailer that has been mentioned above has been included on the Tangled Blu-Ray and DVD release. The title is going to be Tinker Bell and the Pixie Hollow Games according to the trailer. It also states the video is coming out in 2011 and that this film is a Disney Channel film. --Mshaw2715 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per previous comment (which I can personally confirm); trailer essentially proves film is sufficiently produced to meet WP:NFF. Once this AfD is closed, Tinker Bell: Race Through the Seasons should be merged into this article. --RBBrittain (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per source that works for BVHE the movie is set for release Early October 2011. Info regarding release date of Tinker Bell and the Pixie Hollow Games. --Mshaw2715 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since information has been established to satisfy my initial reasons for deletion I'm withdrawing my nomination. elektrik SHOOS 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP -- I hope I'm going out on a limb with this one -- & against not only consensus, but Beeblebrox's otherwise convincing point that this is actually a re-creation of an article that has been deleted thrice. That said, the group just squeaks over the notability line (per WP:NMUSIC) because of its association with two notable artists -- Craig Owens & Jonny Craig -- on its Kingdoms album. Had the article been properly wikified, their association would have been obvious. (And why doesn't anyone ever rely on print publications like Rolling Stone or NME to prove notability instead of only websites? That would make deciding notability on unfamiliar genres like "post-hardcore" much easier.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (Band)

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Sources provided are either primary or unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources, both the Sputnikmusic and AbsolutePunk references are of the amateur, user-submitted variety. Postrock1 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are sufficient in the context, stated as sources of "user ratings". Sources could be nothing but primary in the context. Other primary sources include nterviews with the band; these too are sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden234 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. Coverage in Sputnikmusic and AbsolutePunk would normally warrent a keep vote from me; however since, in this case, these are unprofessional reviews this leaves no coverage in reliable sources and thus a delete vote. Of course if some were found I would change my vote, cheers, Postrock1 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I understand. The information and references have been replaced by reliable information from a professional music review.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND #5 in that they are signed with a reasonably notable label with a history and roster of notable artists. References in this article are a significant problem that needs to be addressed however. RadioFan (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely they don't qualify? WP:BAND #5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). They have only released one album. And Uprising Records hardly seems to be "one of the more important indie labels." Postrock1 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I'll defer to other's judgement on the importance of this label and change my !vote if this is an unimportant label. The presence of Fall Out Boy on that label caught my eye but I'm certainly no expert on indie music. --RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Fall Out Boy release caught my eye too, but if you have a look at the Fall Out Boy article, they only released their debut album on this label. I quote from the albums page (here) "Fall Out Boy's debut album has had almost no mainstream attention, and it has not reached any charts. Also, no singles were released from this album. The original release is not featured on the Official Fall Out Boy Website, rather the remastered edition. The band has not performed, if any, notable live shows with songs from this album. Many reviewers, such as Allmusic, consider "Take This to Your Grave" as Fall Out Boy's first album, possibly due to "Evening Out with Your Girlfriend" being a mini-LP or unknown. Also, in the booklet of "Believers Never Die", they start off with the making of "Take This to Your Grave", completely omitting "Evening Out with Your Girlfriend". Seems like everyone, including the band and the music press, act like this album didn't exist. I hadn't heard of it either, I was under the impression that Take This to Your Grave was their first *shrug*. I guess notability is WP:NOTINHERITED anyway. Postrock1 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not inherited but we do need some way of determining if this label helps this band meet WP:BAND or not. It would be nice to have some other opinions here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look on Uprising Records website you will see Broadway is their main band, besides notability of the label shouldn't particularly matter. The article is required, you can see from google predictions that the band broadway is searched often, with many searchers looking for the wikipedia article. On the front page alone there are two questions on yahoo answers looking for Broadways' wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden234 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment if there were references to significant coverage in reliable sources in the article, the label wouldn't enter into this discussion, but right now its all I'm finding to help this band meet notability guidelines. Take a look at those guidelines and see if you can help. How often they are searched for in Google or any other search engine or how much hits there are doesn't help here, Wikipedia makes no use of this in determining notability.--RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage not found. The claim they pass WP:MUSIC#5 by just signing is laughable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important procedural note An article on this band was previously deleted via afd in 2009, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadway (band). That title was salted and presumably this re-creation was made at this title with the intent to evade the create protection rather than going through proper channels and requesting it be lifted. I am going to have a look at the deleted article to see how similar it is to the current recreation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is growing larger, and releasing a second studio album. Sources have already shown that there is enough significant detail in reports for the group that I can say that they are notable enough to have their own article. And also without further to say, only reason why the Broadway (band) slot was salted was mainly because their record label had done repeated attempts to make an article for them. Only 3 times was the article ever created excluding this time which isn't as bad as an offense in comparison to articles that have been attempted to of been created more than 8 times, of which usually is the main reason behind salting articles. -- GunMetal Angel 19:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being deleted three times is usually enough to get something salted. It should be anyway. However, having looked at the deleted version it is not sufficiently similar to this re-creation to merit speedy deletion. If the decision here is to delete this title should be salted as well. If the decision is to keep this article should be moved to the currently protected title to conform to our naming conventions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references. Everything is now strongly referenced. I don't understand why this article would not be kept. They're a big band, about to release their second album and they have a huge following. And this article should definitely not be salted because of the record label trying to force a previous article about the band onto wikipedia when they were far less well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borden12345 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating new accounts and please start signing your posts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fuse TV. Jujutacular ^talk 14:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Noise

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

Unreferences, 2 lines of information. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some notability there, however, the article needs some serious work. It needs to have a better lead in and a whole lot more data. If the author cannot get it up to speed by the time the nomination runs out then I recommend Delete Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm inclined to say that this is hardly a notable program. A 2 minute show about basic music news on a channel that specializes in music? It seems like we're writing an article about one small portion of a rather large pot. I say redirect the information to page for the channel FUSE, as "The Daily Noise" is a searchable term. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Bignole, I guess. Depends on whether sources such as Billboard and Billboard's Fuse itself are acceptable; there are lots of those in Google News. All I could find for sources from other sources was a page showing Billboard on Google Books. Anarchangel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra K. Clarke

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

Biography of small town entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable as a prominent Canadian entrepreneur, links have been added as sources. MagikDragon

Badly written but maybe (has awards), maybe not (obscure). Forgotpassword321 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the awards; they appear weak to me. Stevie, IMA and Enterprising Women seem to be characterised by the very large numbers of listed "winners" and "finalists", to the extent that for me they border on PR fodder scam. I'm not impressed by position 96 on someone's list of canadian women entrepreneurs. There's no clarity about her association with the various space societies; she might, for all we know, be a member of them. That's not notable, and right now they lend nothing to the claim of notability. There's also a non-specific indication of printed syndication of what might be thought of as a blog. The article rings enough of my "using wikipedia as an additional promotional tool" bells and way too few notability bells. Right now, I'd delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that they are "weak" awards. A couple of minutes' reading will show you that the Stevies are quite well known, and that other winners there were execs from places like iRobot and Accenture, so not small potatoes. The presenters for that year's awards were Cheryl Casone of Fox business news and Carolyn Kepcher, formerly of the Trump Organization. I'd have sourced this picture for the article http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevieawards/4101751451/in/set-72157622801324898/, but it's not public domain. As for 'someone's list' - the list in question is a national ranking by Canada's leading business magazine. MagikDragon

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think as the article now stands there is a strong enough claim of notability. The awards are diverse, and both national and international, I think that should be enough for WP:BIO. Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no doubt an awesome entrepreneur, but sourcing is just not there. best of luck to you, chandra.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Vic

AfDs for this article:

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

Still a short article with no references establishing WP:Notability 5 years after first AfD Closeapple (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per my own nomination): 5 year old abandoned stub with still no claim or citation of notability following inconclusive AfD in 2006. Per essay Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, if it's article-worthy, it will get re-created. Only bringing this to AfD instead of WP:PROD as a courtesy because there was a previous AfD. --Closeapple (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about a campaign to increase tourism in Victoria, Australia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no indication of notability or apparent interest in developing the article in any way. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jujutacular ^talk 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for this train service, so I asked at WT:TRAINS to see if anyone there could prove the service was notable. However, the consensus there leaned towards delete and so I have brought to AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be notable. No substantial discussion in independent sources. Not even a passing mention of it in specialist media like Railway Gazette. bobrayner (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, there are quite a lot of similar articles on other "superfast" train routes in India which also appear to be short on notability. I'm currently populating Category:Superfast trains and a few of those could be AfD candidates. bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; In which parameter it become non notable? Introduction date is not the creteria. Even after introduction it becomes immense popularity comparing the other trains in the route. Also please check its reservation status'. User:Bobrayner also put so many tags instead of deletion tags in other train pages which are less important than this train.

--Bijuts (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an otherstuff argument. After looking at the Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express article, I found there were very many other articles on Indian trains which are poorly-sourced and low-notability (and in some cases fictional); I'm doing some housekeeping, pending a community decision on the best way to deal with them, because unilaterally sending 200 articles to AfD would be disruptive. In the meantime, Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express should be judged on its own merits. bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are required for notability of Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express

http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/01/stories/2006070111140400.htm,
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/14/stories/2006081414410300.htm,
http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/24/stories/2010042452690800.htm,
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/08/09/stories/2007080959180300.htm,
http://www.thehinduimages.com/hindu/photoDetail.do?photoId=7935113,
http://technoparkliving.com/2010/09/chennai-super-fast-to-stop-at-kazhakkoottam/,
http://www.technoparktoday.com/chennai-trivandrum-super-fast-now-stop-at-kazhakkoottam/
Hindu.com is the website of second-largest circulated daily English newspaper in India The Hindu.

--Bijuts (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references given above to confirm that the train is not fictional. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is one of notability. Nobody doubts that trains between Chennai and Trivandrum exist, but are they notable?

Delete Whilst I'm quite convinced that the train isn't fictional, I've so far seen no links that the train is notable, as per Wikipedia:Notability. The above references are a mixture of train timetable alterations (often noting changes to several other non-notable trains), letters to newspapers, and a photograph of what appears to be the first journey of this otherwise non-notable train service. The referenced photograph might be useful to support notability if one can also show that this type of send-off is reserved for the first running of special train services, rather than all new long-distance trains. Tim PF (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the references above, technoparkliving.com and technoparktoday.com mentions about train no.2697 (now 12697). This article is about 12695/12696, so these two references do not make this any more notable. Anoopramanujam (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The train service routes in India generally have names and this article ought to be kept as a stub. Superfast trains are among the most special of the train services. Getting sources for civic infrastructure in a developing country can be very difficult. It is original research but this is a major train service. The Hindu newspaper source provided shows that the introduction of the train service was notable enough to be featured in a major newspaper, so that should be enough. If it is not then at least let's talk about what to do with all these other train articles; perhaps they could all be merged together in some list. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 11:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang (NGO)

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

non notable organization. Refs are the companies own website, and 2 of their own press releases WuhWuzDat 07:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are to either the NGO itself, or press releases. No independent notability. Also article reads like an add for the NGO. If it survives it will need a cleanup. Monty₈₄₅ 03:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 11:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Cleaners

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

I wasn't able to find reliable independent sources verifying that this group meets any part of Wikipedia's notability criteria for bands. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yeah, probably a cool band to check out in Lincoln, Nebraska, but they aren't "notable" per the rules and all that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see them meeting WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 11:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Access Pass

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

Non-notable program. No hits on Google Books or News. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some searches, including Google, the only source found was the Facebook page of the same name. Which by the way is either where this article was directly copied from or the article was directly copied to Facebook. Also more than enough time has been given for the article to have been expanded but yet no improvement. Does not meet source, notability and a number of other standards. Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ℥^nding·start 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of a Jewish Mother

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

Fairly self-explantatory. Unfortunately neither A7 or A9 apply for books, so it will have to be listed here instead. No claims of notability and no references. Non-notable book by all appearances. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator should try following the simple procedures described at WP:BEFORE. This book may not be great literature, but it is notable, as shown by the coverage in a variety of reliable sources: Boston Globe, Bloomberg Businessweek, MSNBC, Newsday, The New York Times, J weekly, Fox News, WNTH, Buffalo News, Danbury News Times and on and on and on.

WP:BEFORE is not policy, or even a guideline; at best, it is a suggestion. No one is under any obligation to pay it the slightest bit of attention if they choose not to. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BEFORE is more than just a "suggestion" because it is a tool for implementing an important policy. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is most certainly policy, and it says "Reasons for deletion include . . . Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It goes on to say, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". If an AfD nominator describes in a few words, their attempts to find reliable sources and the result of that search, that starts the debate off on the right foot, in my opinion.Cullen328 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point for clarity, in WP:DELETE "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is one criteria, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" is a separate one. So I would read DELETE to not require an extensive source search if there is no clear assertion of notability in the article, merely a good faith belief that the article is not notable. Monty₈₄₅ 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is trivial, consisting of mostly 1-2 sentence name-drops in articles about the "Real Housewives..." tv show. You can't just bean-count the number of times it is simply mentioned and call that "reliably sourced". WP:NBOOK has specific criteria, none of which are met by this book. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo News coverage is much deeper coverage than a "1-2 sentence name drop". There are far more Google News hits, and other detailed reviews may well be available. I don't like this kind of book, but it appears notable.Cullen328 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book is talked about a lot and even reviewed. There's enough coverage for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue per sources found, which I have added to the stub. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 9 inline citations, I removed the two stub templates, and added talk page {{Talk header}}{{WikiProject Jewish culture|class=start|importance=low}} templates rating the article as start, not stub. Plenty of discussion of this book in the media, so there is no reason to question the notability. WP:NBOOK says The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. Enough said. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through the summaries that appear. They talk about the book in plenty of places. Dream Focus 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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