Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 3

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable autobiography (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pat grenier) —Ruud 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe de Lespinay

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

The subject of this biography is "a French entrepreneur and inventor", as the article states, and evidently has extensive knowledge and experience in the subjects of Artificial Intelligence and Expert systems, having apparently set up a company producing such software. As the article also notes, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay has authored a couple of articles on the subject for the Larousse encyclopedia, and has apparently had several articles published elsewhere. I see no evidence however that such publications can meet WP:notability (books) guidelines, meaning that he doesn't pass the notability test as an author/journalist. Regarding his work in AI, the article makes repeated claims about ground-breaking advances in software, without providing any independent reliable sources to back them up. Instead, we are offered sources written by Lespinay himself, together with links to scanned documents on Lespinay's company (Tree Logic Ltd) website - sometimes with sections intentionally blanked out - that don't actually verify the claims made. I have repeatedly attempted to explain to the contributor of the article our requirements regarding the need to provide sources to back up claims of notability, but have got nowhere. Likewise, doing my own searches for information on Lespinay has revealed nothing to indicate the availabilty of independant material required to establish notability as an 'inventor' or as an 'entrepreneur'. Accordingly, I propose that the article should be deleted, as not meeting Wikipedia requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s notability as an author/journalist is irrelevant, as he never pretended to be an author or journalist. His numerous writings are by-products of his work as an entrepreneur and inventor. As Wikipedia has no specific rule for this category, we can rely on the basic criteria : "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject."

The Jean-Philippe de Lespinay entry is supported by dozens of publications. Some of these are primary sources and we agree that "they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" (note that they are not to be dismissed anyway, as according to WP rules they "may be used to support content in an article"). This leaves numerous ("multiple") secondary publications in the general and business press, including some large and well-known French newspapers and magazines which certainly qualify as "reliable" and "independent". Does the fact that they are available as scanned documents on Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s company lessen their significance? Certainly not, this just means making them available on different media, with no impact on their content (I don't see the alleged "intentional" blankings). On the other hand, it provides for their verifiability. Remember most of them where published in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s as paper-only publications which today are available only in French libraries.

While these publications amply prove notability, do they actually verify the claims made? If not, this would call for editing the article, not deleting it. I’ll leave this to technical experts. Note that a large part of these articles were published in the IT business press, and I would assume they were in a good position to decide if Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s technology was significant at the time in the field of AI. Also note that a full book, Le Seac’h’s Développer un système expert, was written out of using this technology by a publisher, Éditions du PSI, which was back then one of the main French publishers specializing in IT.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) ~~— OBreizMaBro1 (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic.~~ OK, 143 edits (including "éditions supprimées") on the French Wikipédia. --Lambiam 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made numerous edits on the French wikipedia, but for some reason my name or password was not recognized on en.wikipedia.org and I had to create a 2d account under the same name.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! sorry, I didn't mean "Développer un système expert" was written by the publisher or that the publisher was using this technology, just that the publisher of the book was a major one.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes one person, well aware of the workings of Wikipedia and who knows how to put a banner, and a banner for deletion appears. It's sad. Without good reason, refusing discussion, AndyTheGrump left the talk page and lead me here. With this unmotivated banner (he did not even suggest an improvement in the article!) he is hurting the authors and the subject of article, but it is probably the intended purpose. Is it comply with the Wikipedia rules ? Pat grenier (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith --Lambiam 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." And you Lambian, do you help our project or are you hurting it ? Pat grenier (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OBreizMaBro1 has fully responded to AndytheGrump and I thank him. I add AndyTheGrump admits that the subject of the article is a French entrepreneur and an expert in AI who has written extensively on AI and expert systems and on whom much has been written, but strangely he does not ask for the reasons for this fame and sees no evidence of notability. He does not deny that JP de Lespinay has produced innovations and sold his expert systems to many companies during 20 years. He does not deny that Josephine, a very large expert system (1000 rules + extern programs) was developed in 1986 in 4 months with the Maieutic method by a non computer scientist and it was a technological first. He doesn't deny it was a conversational software with questions produced by the zeroth order reasoning engine developed by Lespinay, probably the first one in history. It doesn't deny that this expert system was used during years by customers and journalists of way and that this feat was acclaimed by the press for years. He does not deny that this method was automated in Maieutica, Miao, and Trex, generators producing expert systems that can be used on the web, which clearly show that this method of writing expert systems works well. He does not deny that, if true, it is an unique technology and therefore the notability of Lespinay can be explained perfectly. He does not deny that Lespinay was asked (and paid) to write an article of 16 pages about state of art in IA in the most important scientific journal in Europe: Science and Life (it was one of the longest articles ever written in this review). No, he denies it's enough to have an article in Wikipedia. He prefers to put a deletion banner to cast suspicion on our article. Pat grenier (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am obliged to neither confirm nor deny anything. All that I have asked is that you find independent reliable sources that actually support the claims you are making regarding the 'fame' of Lespinay, and the 'acclaimed' nature of his 'technological first'. The sources you provide don't. I have been unable to find any such sources myself (and for the umpteenth time, we don't accept scanned documents hosted on the subject's own website as sources). It seems reasonable to assume then that such sources do not exist.

I note also that you refer to 'our article'. Do you mean yours? Or Lespinay's? Or come to that, are you Lespinay? You appear to be making claims regarding Lespinay that are undocumented, and could only be made by someone close to Lespinay. I assume you are familiar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Could you clarify, for the record,whether you have any relationship (professional or personal) with Lespinay? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pat grenier is a single-purpose account, presumably the same user as the SPA User:Pat Grenier (see [1]) used to create this article. --Lambiam

Lambian, "please assume good faith" Pat grenier (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reliable sources cited do not provide the in-depth coverage required for notability. The corresponding page on the French Wikipédia was also deleted for lack of notability, as well as another page on his brainchild Maïeutique. --Lambiam 09:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not delete. First, The fact that an article the same subject in French-language Wikipedia has been deleted is totally irrelevant - Wikipedia's are independent, and each have their own policies" dixit AndyTheGrump himself. Then, Lambian, what WP rule do you invoke to refuse notability and an improvement of the article ? What rule do you invoke to refuse the article about Lespinay describes an entrepreneur and/or two companies ? Pat grenier (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguments of OBreizMaBro1 are off-topic since all the references are about the technology or de Lespinay's companies, not de Lespinay himself. We are discussing the notability of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, not the technology he developed. The numerous sources do not provide any notable references to de Lespinay, only self-references, and small interviews in minor, advert-like articles. Besides, the use of the most serious sources is flawed: there are no real connections between what is being asserted in the article and the actual sources (e.g. refs 9 and 10). There is no recognition of de Lespinay or de Lespinay's work outside his attempts at self-promotion. On the whole Lespinay business, including La Maieutique, I will draw here the same conclusion as on the french wikipedia: it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s, but nothing more, and certainly not independent articles. Sylenius (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I inform everybody that Sylenius is one of those who have already succeeded twice to obtain deletion of all references to the Lespinay discovery in Wikipedia France, in 2008 and this month ! It can therefore be expected he has one or two strong arguments. Read the following:

1) "We" are discussing this and not that" ? You've become the voice of others in Wikipedia eng ? It's a conspiration ?

2)"We are not discussing the technology he developed" ! OK: the Article La Maieutique is therefore maintained and, consequently, the article on his inventor is maintained.

3)"e.g. refs 9 and 10": these references show software engineering is still today a theme of research because the solution is considered still not found. If that references are bothering you, I can find other. This is not a reason to request the removal of an article.

4)"the use of the most serious sources is flawed (e.g. refs 9 and 10)" You have chosen these two references as the most serious because they do not speak of Lespinay inventions, or his customers, or his companies, or his theories?

5) "There is no recognition of de Lespinay or de Lespinay's work outside his attempts at self-promotion": all press clippings in the most famous national newspapers in France, cited in the articles are "self-promotion" ?

6) "I will draw here the same conclusion as on the french wikipedia: it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s, but nothing more, and certainly not independent articles" You admit "historical interest" of the inventions of Lespinay but "certainly not independent articles" ?! Why ? Pat grenier (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-non-notable.Jarhed (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Jarhed, explain. Deletion is not a joke. Pat grenier (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG. That there may be French language sources about the subject is all very well and good, but one actually has to produce them, and I take it as significant that no one on the French Wikipedia seems to have found any either. It is somewhat specious to argue that English speakers will find French sources the French speakers couldn't ... in any event, no one has. Ravenswing 15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a "Senior Editor III", you created 54 articles on Wikipedia, you have one of the 1000 most active Wikipedians, and you don't see there is no argument for deletion and improvement is not offered ? You don't detect bad faith ? You don't see the sources that we show prove indisputably the notability of Lespinay so that Sylenius, his worst ennemy, propose "it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s". You do not notice that our opponents are computer scientists and La Maieutique of Lespinay is a technology to program without computer scientists ? Apparently you are not a computer scientist, please help us ! Use your intelligence to prevent removal of articles in the WP eng showing a key period of history and an invention for improving the life of everybody in the world, but hated of computer scientists because they are afraid of losing their job (these computer scientists who have been the cause of the disappearance of many jobs, without be harassed...).

That's what happened twice in the WP fr with Lespinay (2008 and September 2011): believing in democracy, a horde of computer scientists came to vote "NO" and too bad for the public interest. It is the death of encyclopedic spirit. Yet he is born in France, with Diderot... Pat grenier (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are 45 different links in the article. 1 is a bad link (The page cannot be found), 11 are general articles with no allusion to Lespinay or maïeutique. 15 are texts writed by JPhi de Lespinay, 6 are documents with variable interest : diplom, registration of Tree Logic (Société radiée le 06/10/2003), genealogy of marquis de Lespinay, regional three years FCPI label, 2 IA conferences in 1987 with JPhi de Lespinay in the program.

12 are scanned articles on Lespinay'site, not valuable fot WP notability. But we have the same conclusion if we look about their significance: 10 from these 12 articles date from the implementation of each successive software, and give no indication about their success : Josephine in 1987 (17, 3=16), MIAO in 1990-91 (25, 26), Maieutica in 1996 (24), Tiara in 2001-2002 (33, 8). Only two articles give these indications, and both are very bad :

(20) 01 Informatique, 30/5/88 : Joséphine a maintenant un an. Cette application (...) a été saluée comme l'une des premières réalisations opérationnelles dans le domaine bancaire. Pourtant, le déploiement (...) a pris du retard, la version Minitel de l'application a été abandonnée et l'on reconnaît (...) que l'utilisation (...) s'accompagne d'erreurs et demande une grande vigilance. (...) Erreur dès la conception ou simple problème interne de mise à jour et de circulation de différentes versions ? Nous pencherions pour la première éventualité car, malgré un discours très vendeur de la société Arcane, il ne nous a pas semblé qu'il était si facile de manier la base de faits. (...) Il va maintenant falloir se sortir de l'amateurisme, laisser de côté les démarches inspirées par la curiosité

(22=28), Systèmes experts, 10/12/92 : C'est la troisième année qu'Arcane, une société nantaise spécialisée sur les applications d'intelligence artificielle et présidée par Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, est présente sur le salon Maintenance (...) Après 7 ans pendant lesquels le chiffre d'affaires, réalisé sur cette seule activité systèmes experts, a stagné à quelque 700 KF par an, 1993 pourrait générer un CA de l'ordre de 1,5MF estime le président d'Arcane. La petite société va-t-elle enfin connaître le développement auquel elle était promise il y a deux ans ?)

So JP de Lespinay has produced no proved successful innovation. Josephine never really works and was rapidly abandoned, and we have no indication for the others. And, because bankruptcies, Tree Logic had no activity between several years, JPhi de Lespinay having just got the right to create a society in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigoureux (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Fontaines

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

No evidence of notability. Actress had an ensemble role in one movie, and a role in 2 commercials, which is insufficient to meet WP:ENT. Several of the alleged references only verify her existence (as in, they are pictures of her at a party), or they don't even talk about her (only about things/people she is associated with), so unless someone can actually see the offline references, I'm unwilling to just AGF that those are somehow sufficient to establish notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An ensemble role in one film and a couple of commercials is far too little to establish notability in accordance with WP:ENT. A Google search revealed that there are most likely no other roles or achievents to be added. Notability is not inherited, so the fact that she appeared at a rally that John F. Kennedy Jr., Daryl Hannah, Sarah McClachlan and Midnight Oil also attended is immaterial. The rally and it's other guests may be notable, but that cannot be used as evidence that the subject of the article is. Her biography on IMDB is also puffery based on vague "worked in" and "worked with" claims. No evidence that she or her band has ever released a recording at all, never mind a notable one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb page was incredibly sparse, with basically no participation inherently notable work. No other sources to back up notability are found, and no indication that she will eventually meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost not acting career to speak of, music career less. Has managed to get herself photographed at a few parties in LA. Zero GNews hits. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:NMUSIC. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's nothing under WP:NACTOR for "Aging wannabe starlet who's never done anything notable" or under WP:NMUSIC for "Musician no one's ever heard of." Article created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wiki activity, then or subsequently. Ravenswing 15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't come close to satisfying notability guidelines. Majority of online sources are simply references to social appearances. Doesn't satisfy WP:ENT or any of the other guidelines already mentioned. basalisk (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. Springnuts (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be trying to gain notability via Wikipedia. IMDB shows no major parts. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rekcahdam

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable secondary sources. A search of google hits for the subject provide little more than primary sources, blogs and web forums. Trusilver 05:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article came from 'Rekcahdam' himself and an editor on here. Eindeadmiles (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)— Eindeadmiles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is that intended to be a reason to delete the article or keep it? This only means that on top of notability issues, there's also a conflict of interest issue. Trusilver 06:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but it seems like it.Eindeadmiles (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'Rekcahdam' and have no affiliation with him. I obtained the referenced information on my own and decided to create this page after following him for quite some time. I have admittedly emailed him but have yet to receive a reply. Rekcahdam (aka Roger Hicks) does in fact have notability among the gaming community as of this year. Searching 'Celestial Mechanica', 'rComplex', 'Rekcahdam' and Roger Hicks on google will produce results to defend my claim. My sources are reliable as they are used and have been relied on by the gaming community for years. Both indiegames and kotaku, although blogs, have been considered valid sources for over 4 years. Due to the nature and culture of the video game community sites, such as these, are considered to be valid journalism. I have removed my inclusion of the links to Roger's personal site per the Total PC Gaming Magazine reference but, I noticed that several other wikipedia.org pages have included their personal sites and gaming blogs as well. Laura Shigihara , who's page is referenced in the article, is a perfect example of this. Another example is the Pixel (game developer) page which includes links to 1UP.com which can also be considered unreliable by your terms. How are these pages allowed if 'Rekcahdam' is not?LightyKD (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may agree that the article can be improved but the majority of the inline citations provided are reliable and from reputable sources backed by wikipedia itself. Indiegames.com is a game news site owned by UBM TechWeb (aka UBM plc ) which, according to it's wikipedia page, has been around since 1918. Indiegames.com simply brings light to many independent developers who otherwise would not have gained attention. Roger Hicks is among these developers and, after doing much research, I've found that he has been featured numerous times for his games rComplex, Stream, Celestial Mechanica and fan works based on his games.Kotaku is also backed by wikipedia itself and research can be done to prove its reputation as a reliable video game news source. His works have been published in 2 magazines (BGamer and Total PC Gaming) but I can only reference one because the pages are only found directly on his website. But, as I said previously, linking directly to the personal website of the article's subject is not uncommon. It has been done with Laura Shigihara and Pixel (game developer). There are several other sources I could also mention here as well. For example; Destructoid, Rock Paper Shotgun and PLAYISM, which is a product of Active Gaming Media, all mention that Celestial Mechanica was displayed at the most recent Tokyo Game Show which I cited (or will cite) in the article . You simply cannot ignore all of this and claim that there is no notability and no reliable sources here. LightyKD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— LightyKD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources (such as to his website) that provide useful info but are not WP:RS as they are primary and not independent. There are sources that cover one or more of his games, but only tangentially the man himself. Again, useful info, but not much use to show notability, which is WP:NOTINHERITED. Zero hits on GNews. GNews for "Roger Hicks" shows only hits to other people with the same name, as far as I can tell. GEverything provides mostly primary or tangential references. About the best thing RS-wise is a podcast-type interview on a small gamer website here. Allmusic has no bio or albums, but does list a couple of small credits on other people's albums, under his given name. Last.fm shows 35 listeners for a song he was featured on. He may yet warrant his own WP entry, but I don't think this is even a close call at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: If one is to allege the subject meets the GNG, where are the reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail?" Indiegames.com bills itself as a blog, and the two reviews are two short paragraphs apiece about the game, mentioning his name and nothing more. The Rock Paper Shotgun and kotaku.com reviews have three short paragraphs apiece about the game, mentioning his name and nothing more. The gamercareerguide.com cite was written by the subject himself. That some of these sites have Wikipedia articles do not make them reliable sources, nor does the subject's name being mentioned in passing confer notability, since notability is not inherited. Like Hobbes Goodyear, I don't consider this remotely close; even if you presumed they constituted reliable journalism by our standards, the sources presented that don't come from the subject's own website or from his own pen don't discuss him at all, let alone in "significant detail." Ravenswing 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite claims to the contrary, this topic is covered extensively in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse diagnosis

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

An ayurveda fork of pulse which has managed to pick up more and more crud along the way, with no useful citations whatsoever. At best I think an ayurvedic subsection in the medical article might be justified, assuming it were properly cited. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit out the dubious third and fourth paragraphs (the ones laden with synthtags). I don't know much about Ayurveda, but pulse diagnosis is certainly an important aspect of TCM; a quick trawl through gbooks will provide plenty of sources. As a concept, it's notable enough to have an article. Yunshui (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of this article needs to be cut, but to echo Tunshui, this is a huge part of TCM. I found some promising articles in the Journal of the History of Biology that might be used to repurpose this article to cover pulse diagnosis as a historical and TCM practice. eldamorie (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I am sensitive to the need to retain decently sourced information on the pulse as it figures in Ayurveda and TCM. My problem is particularly with the article as titled: it is misleading and unnecessary, as most of main article is already devoted to diagnosis. I would prefer to expand the current fugitive references within pulse itself. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps moving it to something like Pulse diagnosis in traditional Chinese medicine would help? Its use in Ayurveda - if significant enough to make an article on - could be similarly put in a disambiguated page. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's so little material that I think it could all be incorporated in the parent article; however, a sufficient expansion could justify such a move. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From what I've read, TCM pulse diagnosis COULD have an article on it, not that it would be anything like this one. I'd be inclined to delete this one as a bad idea, but if it's considered more desirable to have a really awful, useless stub, then some redefinition of scope is necessary, because the actual subject of mainstream pulse diagnosis is completely and totally explained in Pulse. In short, the keeps are based on an article of a different scope. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May as well make my feelings explicit: The subject of mainstream pulse diagnosis is covered under Pulse; any alt-med or historical version should be disambiguated anyway, and TCM pulse diagnosis - probably the only really notable alternate version which is worth having an article on, due to its complexity - is so badly explained here that there's nothing worth keeping for a future, correctly positioned article. Alternatively, Redirect to pulse, which has a great deal of information on mainstream pulse diagnosis. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) (Note: I'm the same as the 86.182.20.197 above - dynamic IP)[reply]
Keep sure the article could be better, but as a topic it should exist. It is too big to be called a fringe theory and is quite mainstream in China. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is way too important a part of traditional Chinese medicine—1,400 results in Google Scholar alone.[2] That surely exceeds WP:GNG. Stub it if we have to, but keep it, even if it's a one sentence stub. First Light (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a shorter and more verifiable version as I have just made it. Per Yunshui, Graeme Bartlett. Open to a move to a better title as well, but this is not the venue to decide that. --John (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Colby's Incredibly Awesome Adventure

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that it meets WP:MOVIE. causa sui (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per causa sui; no significant coverage in reliable sources. CityO fSilver 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal heros

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

Article was previously speedy deleted under G3 as a hoax a short while ago. It was recreated by a WP:COI editor, and then deProded by same editor without addressing the concern. This series fails WP:NBOOK, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I am unable to find reliable source coverage to establish notability for this series of books which "will be released soon" according to the previous version of the article. It seems that deletion with salt may be necessary. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article author can present sources. --Chris (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, third-party sources of course. --Chris (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention I can find of this anywhere apart from the Wikipedia article is a Facebook message, the full text of which is "Immortal Heros. This i written by my owner Jack Addison Bressler. Not for kids under seven for mild langangue, gore & violenece. Bark Bark!" I also note that the article claims this is a "new series", and yet says that there are 23 books in the series. Almost certainly a hoax, and if not then totally non-notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of this article states that he is the author of the series "Immortal Heros". He also stated in an edit which is now deleted that the author of the series is ten years old. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. This is a redirect. The deletion of redirects is discussed at WP:RfD. Sandstein 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Sollecito

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

While I'm convinced Amanda Knox is verifiably notable (and have requested a deletion review accordingly), I'm less convinced about Raffaele Sollecito. In any case there should not be a redirect to a murder for which he has been acquitted, if only because this could be considered libelous. -- samj _in ^out 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close - This entire situation is quickly spiraling out of control and is proof positive that the Wikipedia's crowd-sourcing approach to editing is absolutely piss-poor when dealing with current events and breaking news. Discussion is fractured between the article talk page, a DRV for Knox's redirect, and now this AfD. Apart from that, it is a redirect, not an article so it is misplaced asn an AfD. Also, redirects are largely immune from NPOV concerns, and having one's name direct to a case that one is involved in does not imply guilt or innocence. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a quick note to the baseball analogy, merely playing one game in the Majors is considered enough for notability, winning a pennant or award, or being recognised in any way as a good player, is not required. In baseball, a few games and then back to the minors, is considered sufficent. PORNBIO is considerably different than ATHLETE, and the rules for porn performers do make heavy weight of awards. Consensus is to delete this BLP. Courcelles 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette B

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Most GNews and Gbooks hits are spurious, to various "Bridgette B. [Surname]" texts; what remains after sorting are a handful of press releases and an RS-failing book about "confessions" of the "hottest pornstars" written by a publicist. In short, no significant coverage, no reliable sources, certainly none cited in the article. A single porn award nom isn't sufficient to show notability, and this one is particularly weak, since it's a group nom for 15 performers in a single scene. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is well-known in the industry. She worked for all big companies. So she passes WP:PORNBIO. http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=BridgetteB/gender=female --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A shared award for a group effort might conceivably be perceivable as being as notable as an individual's award, and has precedence within Wikipedia. In an more obvious and widely accepted comparison, we consider those atheletes who were part of winning a National League or American League pennant for their team just as notable for their contribution to the team's overall win as we condsider the MVP Award given being notable in recognition of individual effort. This underscores how WP:PORNBIO selects to set itself seperate from other notability standards. But to User:Hixteilchen, the long and multi-film careers of porn stars are rarely considered qualifying per WP:ENT unless the projects in which they took part are shown as itself being exceptionaly notable. Find coverage for the actress and she might then be seen as meeting WP:GNG, PORNBIO notwithstanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I don't agree with the nominator's stand on group award wins or nominations, the nom is otherwise correct. Bridgette B fails WP:PORNBIO without award nominations in multiple years. RS coverage may be better than most porn stars, but it lacks depth needed for GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent recreation. Agree with the above comment. 173.70.45.40 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. surprised this bit o' spam slipped past the patrollers The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Risk Manager

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

A professional certification with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. No argument for deletion advanced, nor was a demand for it even made. Discuss merging and redirection on the list and target article's talk pages. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Islanders general managers

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

Merged this tiny list with the main article, New York Islanders. iMatthew / talk 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reverted the undiscussed merge. We split these lists out for all 30 teams to be consistent. There are lists that are smaller than this one which is by no means a small list. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note smaller coach/gm lists than this have been kept at afd previously. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A merger does not require an AfD, as even if there was discussion to do so, the old article would be redirected to the target. Especially if this becomes a case where preservation of edit history is required. That said, being a small list does not disqualify one from usefulness. i.e. List of Calgary Flames general managers. Also, per DJSasso, as this list is one of a defined set for each NHL team. Reso lute 20:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DJSasso and Resolute. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote of the Day

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

Nothing here but a random list of quotations. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all already on the creator's user page anyway, among numerous other things (there may be some WP:UPNOT issues there, but that's a different discussion.) §everal⇒|Times 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several sites with lists of quotes out there - this may be a copy of one of them or an original list. Whichever, it's not a page that belongs in an encyclopaedia. So long as it is an original compilation, I can't see much objection to it being on a userpage, but it's not mainspace material. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are numerous quotations however no references, i doubt all are original and as such the are improperly sited. 141.117.155.213 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a random indiscriminate collection of information →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was redirect; no referenced information worth merging --John (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kuklinski

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

Does not meet the required coverage for notability of a criminal. Almost all of the coverage seems to simply be passing mentions in coverage of his far more notable sibling. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary claim to notability is through his brother. --Cox wasan (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:CRIME. Neither the person or the crime satisfy the notability requirements. -Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This AfD was never transcluded and so I have "re"-listed to offer a wider view. — Scientizzle 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Scientizzle 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Scientizzle 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Richard Kuklinski. It's not an implausible search string, given their connection, and Joseph is mentioned in Richard's article. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the IP address →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fails WP:GNG, but interesting information suitable for his brother's page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He barely ever spoke to his brother, they were not connected to each other. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the IP address - the bare bones of his life are in the article, and I don't think the rest is worthy of a merge. Colon el Tom 03:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether a move is required is not for this forum, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lavery

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

Delete: as non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination is right out of "arguments not to make in a deletion discussion". WP:Not notable says, "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Unscintillating -- let me expand my rationale. It appears to me that the subject is non-notable, failing, WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable only for inventing the Psychograph, a pseudoscientific gadget of the early 20th century. Redirect if anyone writes an article about that notable hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Psychograph and keep the redirect, and (if no other edits are done) swap the first and second sentences and remove the header. Also, add Psychograph to the "See also:" list at Phrenology. Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Move to Psychograph". Psychograph is already a redirect to Psychographic, although it appears to my layman's eyes (and I may be wrong), that they are not the same thing. Perhaps other editors, including Cullen328, can help sort it out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then move to Psychograph (phrenology). Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my quick suggestion of what I thought would be a red link. I had to get back to work and didn't notice the incorrect link I suggested until later. Rms125a@hotmail.com is correct. That redirect has nothing at all to do with Lavery's pseudoscientific "invention". A new article about his gadget would be required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a deletion discussion, or a requested move? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly move to new title as suggested by Unscintillating. I have expanded the article and added references. His machine appears to have been quite notable during the 1930s and is credited with maintaining the popularity of phrenology in America.[3] The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices has a working model of the machine on display which museum visitors can use.[4] It could be argued that the machine is more notable than he is, and so the existing article could be reorganized slightly and moved to Psychograph (phrenology). --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep withdrawn by nominator.

List of Research Labs at the University of Massachusetts Amherst

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

This article includes many articles which might not even be with the school. The fact that there are also no sources on the article also makes it a bit concerning. I know that the Apiary Laboratory is no longer active anymore in that role and I am not even sure that some of these others exist as there is no source information for them. Also, stating that laboratories that have a station here implies that the location of the original laboratory is there also makes the article more flawed because that makes all the other laboratories suspect. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just look at the sources in the list: we delete only what is unverifiable, not merely that which is unverified at present. Please see WP:BEFORE.
On the specifics, I don't see why it would be a problem that a certain lab is no longer active at that university campus, because we are always interested in history rather than just giving a directory of current things. If there are labs listed that are not and have never been affiliated with or maintained facilities at that campus, then remove them. We don't delete articles for issues that are fixable by editing. And I don't understand your last sentence.
This isn't my subject area, but from what I can see there are four labs that have articles included in the list that have facilities at Amherst. There may be more that merit articles, and/or there may be agreement by editors that even those labs that don't merit standalone articles should nevertheless be documented here so it's not just an article index. Or it's possible that this list is unworkable for reasons not yet raised (or not yet made clear), but you need to do some more work (or better explaining, at least) to show that deletion is justified. postdlf (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting another user, I have realized that it is best to withdraw it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flannel Friday

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

Contested prod. Event with no evidence of coverage other than its Facebook page. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it is a notable trend, possibly a hoax. While promoting Flannel is an admirable goal, I don't think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schuck

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

Appears to be a non-notable software engineer. I have attempted to find reliable source coverage and the bulk of what I turn up is just social media passing mentions and social media profiles. The most specific article I could find was in PC World Australia [5] where he is mentioned in the article but is not the focus of the article which instead focuses on how Google recruits employees. He is mentioned in passing on a list of several google employees that ended up as Twitter employees in this ZDnet article as well [6]. But once again the article is not focused on him. It focuses on Allon who apparently brought him along to the new company. The other media references I can find are passing quotes like the one in this Register article [7] and this SMH article [8]. Overall he appears to have been a fairly typical software engineer at google, and as a result of that job occasionally had passing mentions/quotes. But he does not appear to rise to the level of notability required for WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The rationale says it all.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Schuck co-founded Google Wave "Adam was the Technical Lead of the Google Wave client, having co-founded Google Wave." ^[1]

- Schuck worked on Google Maps, having co-created Mapplets in 2007 ^[2]

- Schuck received the Google EMG award (2nd highest award given at Google) for work on Google Maps API ^[3]

- [Lars Rasmussen], the software developer who developed [Google Maps], said of Schuck in this video “Adam is the best engineer I’ve ever worked with”.^[4]

- http://www.julpan.com/about.html - Julpan mentions the 5 people out of 12. These 5 are co-founders with Allon. Julpan got acquied by Twitter.

I would like ANOTHER few people to moderate and edit the page of Adam Schuck, other than Jasper Deng or ConcernedVancouverite. It seems Jasper Deng or ConcernedVancouverite are contesting articles which I created just for kicks and it is not nice.

Thank you. Domenico.y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico.y (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not all that sure about this article. If he was the lead engineer at Google Wave, he'd be notable, and the question is whether the source for that is reliable; sourcing for people in this industry unless exceptionally famous is generally less than we consider ideal in other subjects. Engineers, even in Google, do not get the press attention of, say, professional wrestlers. I usually take exception to AfDs which carry the argument "Just another (whatever)" or "a typical ..." ; I've seen too many where what the person is typical of is a notable person in their field. It's sometimes a way of running down whatever evidence there may be, & can even be seen as denigrating the subject. I doubt that the average Google engineer among the thousands of them has this many sources. (I was asked to comment on my talk p., but I've previously looked at the article so I'd be here in any case). DGG (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I have referenced and cited properly.

I had to trawl hard to find that Schuck was one of the co-founding entrepreneurs of "SnappSchool", an educational technology company. Just goes to show that if you delve deep enough...

DGG is correct when they say "Engineers, even in Google, do not get the press attention of, say, professional wrestlers.".

I hope that this is now sufficient evidence to keep this article about Schuck. Domenico.y (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment - In response to DGG's !vote regarding the Google Wave position - We disagree that a technical lead of a subproduct of a large company automatically makes someone notable - it would still require reliable source coverage. But regardless of that difference of opinion, it does not appear from google's own reporting of the team that he was the head of the subproduct. He was certainly on the team for Google Wave, along with several other engineers, including 3 other engineers who were listed as the 3 "team leaders" as described on this primary source: [9] which also mentions him among a list under the 3 team leaders as one of 3 other engineers working on the subproduct. I would hate to see a Wikipedia article be used to inflate the importance of someone's position. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding DGG and co-founding Wave - In response to DGG's !vote regarding the Google Wave position: it said on the Julpan site Schuck “co-founded Google Wave”" http://www.julpan.com/about.html. That is fact; it says it on the Julpan site. It is not "inflate the importance of someone's position" by any means.

It says on the website that ConcernedVancouverite found "Lars Rasmussen is a member of Google's technical staff" as well, "and with his brother Jens is co-founder of the Google Wave effort." same as it says on ^[5] "Alex Weinberg, a teacher with Teach For America in New York, started SnappSchool", but it says "6 sleep-deprived entrepreneurs vowed to improve education with technology" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/05/prweb5227204.DTL and says "SnappSchool, as we came to call ourselves, consisted of myself and Alex; two coders", http://theleanstartupmachine.com/2011/07/snappschool-win-nyc-lean-startup-machine-beginning/. So Schuck co-founded the company with 4 or 6 others, depending how you read the articles.

Please do not delete this article, as it re-affirm's Schuck's contribution and co-founding to the technology world.

Domenico.y (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

keep for the reasons 'Schuck co-founded Google Wave "Adam was the Technical Lead of the Google Wave client, having co-founded Google Wave." http://www.julpan.com/about.html'; Schuck worked on Google Maps, having co-created Mapplets in 2007 http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/speakers.html; Schuck received the Google EMG award (2nd highest award given at Google) for work on Google Maps API Adam Schuck Linkedin Profile, http://www.linkedin.com/in/aschuck; Schuck co-founded "SnappSchool http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/05/prweb5227204.DTL; Julpan mentions the 5 people out of 12. These 5 are co-founders with Allon. http://www.julpan.com/about.html Julpan got acquied by Twitter.

. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment - "re-affirm's Schuck's contribution" is not a purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional purposes such as that. The materials you have cited in your keep !vote are all created by or related to the subject of the article. Someone claiming to have an important position on their own webpage, or a bio webpage of a company that they likely have influence over, does not amount to reliable source coverage when it comes to claims that can not be supported in secondary sources. The only secondary source you have mentioned in your keep !vote is the SF Gate link. But if you look more carefully at that link [10] it is not actually the San Francisco Chronicle. It is a press release from PR Web - not a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wrong word then - apologies for using the wrong word. I instead meant "comments on". Domenico.y (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Hi Admin,

Thank you for letting me state my case. The article is referenced properly and thoroughly.

1) DGG is correct when they say "Engineers, even in Google, do not get the press attention of, say, professional wrestlers.". It is hard to find references. I researched and found another company which Schuck co-founded, "Snappschool" and that was only after hours and hours of searching last night/early morning.

2) In response to DGG's !vote regarding the Google Wave position: it said on the Julpan site Schuck “co-founded Google Wave”" http://www.julpan.com/about.html. That is fact; it says it on the Julpan site. It is not "inflate the importance of someone's position" by any means.

3)The person who has had the idea is the founder. That person has a "founding team of co-founders" to work on the project.

It says on the website that ConcernedVancouverite found "Lars Rasmussen is a member of Google's technical staff" as well, "and with his brother Jens is co-founder of the Google Wave effort." same as it says on ^[6] "Alex Weinberg, a teacher with Teach For America in New York, started SnappSchool", but it says "6 sleep-deprived entrepreneurs vowed to improve education with technology" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/05/prweb5227204.DTL and says "SnappSchool, as we came to call ourselves, consisted of myself and Alex; two coders", http://theleanstartupmachine.com/2011/07/snappschool-win-nyc-lean-startup-machine-beginning/. So Schuck co-founded the company with 4 or 6 others, depending how you read the articles.

4) Regarding Julpan, it clearly states that "a team of 12" is there, with "5" 'people' in management/featured positions (except what appears to be Dave Landau who I suspect is jokingly refereed to as "Pool Champion").

5) Schuck co-created Mapplets in 2007 http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/speakers.html;

6) Schuck co-founded "SnappSchool" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/05/prweb5227204.DTL

7) I'm having trouble referencing this, as I have seen Schuck's EMG Award with my own eyes: Schuck received the Google EMG award (2nd highest award given at Google) for work on Google Maps API Adam Schuck Linkedin Profile, http://www.linkedin.com/in/aschuck. How do I cite the reference properly?

8) ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Domenico.y "Another editor believes I am believes I am being bullied: [11]" I feel that ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng are bullying me because I am a newbie and English is not my first language. Please assist them to not comment on my posts, as I am trying my hardest to do edit wikipedia articles within the guidelines (I am definitely NOT "Canvassing" and resent ConcernedVancouverite and Jasper Deng's flag on my page that is a black mark for things which they should have given me a warning for) really like to get those articles correct before I move on.

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment - According to CNN Google Wave was co-founded by Lars and Jens Rasmussen, and they are reported by CNN to be the primary force behind the project. This suggests that Schuck worked on a team lead by others. Article: [12] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and it says just that and no co-founders other than Lars and Jens. Thanks for clearing that up. I checked and it is removed out of the article already. I'm not sure if founding Snappschool is a notable achievement, that is just a small addition. Domenico.y (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Delete – Having cleaned up the article for several blatant problems with basic guidelines for encyclopedic articles (WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:SOURCE, WP:BLP, to name a few) notability isn't met at this time. Even the subject's involvement in a startup company or a development team needs to be underpinned by notability. It looks like only Google has it, and that doesn't approach the guidelines: 1) not to be overly cynical, but we only have Google to cite, which is problematic; and 2) we still don't have multiple, reliable, third party sources on the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be significant in any field (failing notability)Curb Chain (talk) 18:52, 2 October 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, causa sui (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotion of a person of low note. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no reason why all the sources should be considered unreliable. As for the copyright issue, it is indeed a very close paraphrase, but some editing will take care of that. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luico Maclain Hopper

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

BLP appears to be either a vanity page or one maintained by a single, obsessive fan. Unreferenced throughout, and ref list at end is just a string of website links to mainly music album personnel listings. Subject does not appear notable enough for an article. AstroCog (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed deletion is patently biased and inequitable. The biography for this globally recognized musician includes 22 references and 3 external links. Mr. Hopper has played with world-famed musicians who are referenced in Wikipedia including James Brown; Johnny Gil; Luther Vandross; Bryan Ferry; et. al. It is quite outrageous to suggest that this is a vanity site or that the subject does not appear notable enough for article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedeswalton (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Mercedeswalton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a reference from JazzTimes, calling him a "veteran sideman and Broadway bassist". In 1977, the New York Times called him "the phenomenal young bassist Luico Hopper". The author should be aware that we don't allow one Wikipedia article to be used as a reference for another. Most of the references in the article do not meet our standards, and the article needs a lot of work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is far from standard in terms of layout or referencing but that is a matter for article improvement not deletion. Although the subject's career appears to be mainly as a sideman, his own albums have been independently reviewed at respectable sites such as Allmusic and Allaboutjazz. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It certainly appeared to be vanity/publicity when I reviewed it last night. The text is apparently copied from other sites (e.g. this one), with just some minor massaging here and there. The images are publicity stills which the article creator is claiming to be their own in the usage rationale. I am not diminishing this musician's talent or accomplishments, but the article creator is basically saying that he is notable because "look at all the famous people he has worked for." I have worked for a number of famous/notable people, but that fact does not make me notable. I'll concede that the musician has a couple of albums reviewed on websites, but given the way in which this article was created/constructed, using publicity information, copied text, links to product pages, I'm sticking with deletion at this point. AstroCog (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to Astrocog's comments, first of all this article is originally drafted and contrary to your observation it was not "apparently copied from other sites with some minor massaging here and there". Secondly, Luico Hopper's accomplishments are measured not by the number of famous artists who have consistently sought him out of an intensely competitive field of bass guitarists in the United States and in Europe; but rather by this professional musician's nearly four decades of distinguished performances and notable achievements that are standalone and clearly speak for themselves. Your comments convey not only a complete lack of understanding about the inner workings of the music industry and the challenges musicians face in rising to the top of their instrument category among thousands of peers; you also seem particularly intent on marginalizing the professional and personal achievements of an African American male who has served for decades as a role model to many aspiring musicians and youngsters who start from humble beginnings and excel despite incredible odds. While like every other Wikipedia reference, this article is a work in progress and will continue to be improved, your proposal to delete is raises serious questions about so-called administrator objectivity in assessing the worthiness of an entry vis-a-vis other entries that with far less substance and significantly fewer supporting references are routinely rationalized for publication. With the depth and breadth of Mr. Hopper's accomplishments, it is frankly unfathomable that you would this entry would be proposed for deletion. mercedeswalton (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't understand my comment above. You should also be careful of making accusations of racism, because it's obvious that my actual comments do not support that assertion. I haven't singled this article out from every other on WP to nominate for AfD. My reasoning is already explained above. I did not say that a musician's accomplishments are measured by who they have performed with. I said the opposite, in fact. I was responding to your own assertion of notability when you said "The biography for this globally recognized musician includes 22 references and 3 external links. Mr. Hopper has played with world-famed musicians who are referenced in Wikipedia including James Brown; Johnny Gil; Luther Vandross; Bryan Ferry; et. al." Now, as to the copying I am referring to, this is what I mean:

From the WP article:Luico Hopper (pronounced "Lu-e-co") was born on September 5, 1952 in Bassett, Virginia as one of seven children to Nocomis Huddleston and Fitchue Hopper. Hopper was first introduced to music at an early age by his father who was an accomplished self-taught musician who often played the acoustic guitar after long days of working the land on their Virginia farm. Hopper played his first instrument the clarinet throughout high school. On his twelfth birthday, his eldest brother, Lawrence, presented Luico with his first guitar. Soon afterwards, Hopper began giving solo performances and earning extra money playing social events. He began studies in Sociology at Norfolk State University in 1970. During his freshman year, Hopper began playing the electric and acoustic bass. Shortly thereafter, Hopper joined the Norfolk State College Jazz Ensemble and remained part of this group until his graduation in 1974 with a B.A. in Sociology.

This is massaged, sentence for sentence, from the website I linked to:

Born and raised in Bassett, Virginia, Luico Hopper was introduced to music at an early age. He would often listen to his father play the acoustic guitar and sing around their farmhouse.
Luico's first instrument was the clarinet that he played throughout high school. He received his first guitar as a gift from an older brother on his twelfth birthday. Soon, he was immersed in the instrument. Shortly thereafter, he began giving solo performances and started making extra money playing for social events.
After high school, Luico entered Norfolk State University and majored in Sociology. During his freshman year, he started playing the electric and acoustic bass. After a short time, Luico joined the College Jazz Ensemble and remained part of this group until graduation.
Upon receiving his degree in Sociology, he decided to follow his long-time dream of pursuing a career in the music field.

Does anybody else see what I mean here? AstroCog (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is correct, this is blatant copyvio, isn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* That's part of my argument here. I might have been willing to withdraw this nom, given that the subject has albums reviewed on AllMusic, etc, but I wonder why articles for the albums are not more appropriate. I've also done a search for Luico Maclain Hopper on Academic Search Complete and on Google, but I can't find anything that could be used to build an encyclopedic BLP. A fan site and some passing mentions in personnel listings don't cut it for me. AstroCog (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a close paraphrase rather than "blatant copyvio" but I'm not an expert on copyright. It seems that a simple rewrite and trim could eliminate that as an issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 2 October 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, causa sui (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment More opinions on the copyright issues are needed. causa sui (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One generally finds that the story people tell of their upbringing falls into a narrative. (Which of us has not glazed over when a friend or loved one has embarked on their same old story in company?) So I don't find similarity of content and emphasis unsettling. I also note that the brother has a name in the WP article, but not in the other, suggesting it is not simply derivative. (Be nice to have it sourced, but that's not the reason why we're here.) The college ensemble also has a name in the WP version, but that may be an obvious one. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But where is this added information coming from? Doesn't seem to be from any of the references being used. Inserting a few novel facts into sentences already written, and massaging it around slightly doesn't make it original writing. Whether it's copyvio or close paraphrasing, the issue is still: is this information from a reliable source? AstroCog (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reliable sources being used here are for reviews of this musician's albums, and contain no encyclopedic information that could build a biography. So far, nobody has responded to my point that no reliable sources for any such content can be found by doing a basic search through an article database (I used Academic Search Complete) or even Google. I would very much like to see the article saved with reliable content that can support a BLP, but such evidence isn't showing up.AstroCog (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boytjie points

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

Non-notable neologism coined on an apparently non-notable blog, apparently added to Wikipedia by the blog owner. Beloved Freak 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Yet another case of why we need an "unambiguous WP:NOT violation" CSD criteria so this kind of thing doesn't end up at AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, WP:MADEUP. Concur that ther should be a speedy for this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Only seen on one blog. I wanted to speedy this but there isn't a category for it. I don't see why A7 couldn't be expanded to also apply to neologisms. Dac04 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Sorting out whether a neologism is notable enough for inclusion is not really something a CSD should do, unless the article includes hoax level statements. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax (G3). →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shaw

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Irn (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let me add to the nominator's rationale: NO coverage in secondary sources. Furthermore, all the citations in the article are primary sources. The consensus on the first AFD was to keep if notability could be verified. It cannot be verified. Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Big synagogue, popular rabbi, tribute page. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added some sources on the talk page. I don't have the time to spruce up the article and make a judgement. Not sure on the delete. Joe407 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he can be classified as an author for his creation of the 60 for 60 book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gausie (talk • contribs) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is certainly an author, but is he notable? Are there book reviews or newspaper interviews that cite his book? Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i've generally supported pages for rabbis who are heads of prominent congregations, but he's just Community Rabbi at one; their chief rabbi, Mendel Lew, is the one who probably should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Biggles-Jones

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

This article was nominated for deletion more than a year ago, and as far as I can tell, there hasn't been any real improvement made to it since then. It's cited only to primary sources, and fails to show why this subject is worthy of inclusion. c c 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those who want to continue to work on the article once it gets delted, I copied it to http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Doctor_Biggles-Jones and started working on it. Can anyone find any third party references for it? Mathewignash (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability requires verifiable evidence, and I see no evidence that this fictional character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject or that her article could be more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huai'an Pingqiao tofu

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

There is no evidence that this concept is notable. The bulk of the article is a recipe, and other than that it contains subjective opinion (e.g. "delicious taste", unsourced peacock-words (e.g. "well known"), a statement the relevance of which is totally obscure ("In 1984, governments held a reception for Japanese and The American Chinese"), but nothing of any substance at all. The article was proposed for deletion with the reason "Wikipedia is not a cookbook". That was contested with the edit summary "remove prod, there is more to the article than a recipe", but what little more than a recipe there is does not come close to justifying the article's existence. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a legend about Emperor Qianglong and this tofu:[13][14], and it's apparently Zhou Enlai's favourite food: [15]. Reckon there are enough sources out there to warrant inclusion, but there are several different romanisations of the title which makes searching awkward. Yunshui (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add that I totally agree with the nominator regarding Wikipedia not being a cookbook; that whole section needs to go. Yunshui (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite how to make instructions and remove peacock words. Wikipedia still needs improvement in coverage of food. We do not have to stick to food found in North America. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook and the small bit remaining could be fitted into the main tofu article. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've removed the recipe and added some sourced information per my comment above. Still need some work doing. Yunshui (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sounds notable enough at least for the history/legend (and I don't even like tofu). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google search: many results when I lookup the Chinese name 淮安平桥豆腐 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.220.89 (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Badit

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

Contested PROD. Concern was The player has no connection with FC Vaslui II. He is a junior who trains with the first team, but he has no contract, he has nothing. Besides training, he doesn't do anything. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence that this person would meet any of our notability guidelines (NSPORT or GNG). Jogurney (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL reserve player who apparently, trains with the first team. Sir Sputnik has demonstrated superhuman patience on this issue. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone really thinks a redirect has utility, feel free to create one. Courcelles 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Duggal

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

Notability is not inherited — Bill william compton^Talk 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of independent notability. Yunshui (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as failing to include a claim of minimal significance as a public figure. The article basically says that the subject is a physician, related to a number of public figures, and that she was born a Muslim but married a Sikh at the Golden Temple. These are society page achievements, but not encyclopedia achievements. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about Kartar Singh Duggal, which already contains basic info about her. She has no notability as a physician that I could find. References listed in the article don't mention her, or mention her only in passing as Kartar's wife. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MelanieN →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no need for a redirect as she's already named as Kartar Singh Duggal's wife in his article. Colon el Tom 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as pointed out repeatedly, has no actual notability. --Orangemike (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and governments

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

Violates WP:Synthesis. This article brings together information on various interactions of cults and governments around the world without establishing the overall topic is notable. The information on the treatment of Scientology in Western Europe is already well-covered in other articles, as is the info on China and Iran. The material on the USA merely consists of reports of ordinary government actions that happen to involve individuals who are cult members. Individual articles on each issue would be more in keeping with WP standards, it seems to me. I don't think we would have an article on "Women and governments" or even "Jews and governments." Why have one on this? Borock (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, textbook WP:SYN. Brings together a disparate collection of relations between cult-like groups and national governments and uses them to cook up a general view of the relationship between the two. Can't be modified into a neutral and OR-free treatment of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, suppport for the nomiators comments - subject is vague and the topics notability is not even verified by the content. Anything that is not already covered in a more specific article and it worth keeping can be merged, but I don't see much, or anyreally, of that type of content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in this article is important, but as the nominator said it is already found in other articles. BigJim707 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:SYNful article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the NPOV term is "new religious movements", but if that was the only problem, it could be fixed by a rename and editing. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An intersection like this makes sense in the Category namespace (and we do have Category:Government anti-cult measures), but really doesn't make sense in the article namespace. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Religious persecution by country. I see... This all was renamed to Freedom of religion, for example Freedom of religion in the People's Republic of China. New record of "NPOV". Biophys (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced, well-watched, and much-edited article. The POV is not so serious as to require deletion. Merging will destroy a useful history and dissipate the information therein. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternate, move to Government regulation of new religious movements, Legal regulation of new religious movements, or the like. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant violation of the WP:Synthesis rule. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savita Bhabhi

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

Reads like an ad, non-notable porn site. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep I'd love to see this binned, but in spite of the terrible copy, it does seem fairly well sourced and hence passes the notability guidelines. Needs rewriting, but not deleting. Yunshui (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Yunshui. Despite the fact that it needs a re-write, the article is well sourced and notable enough for me. --MK 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Notable enough. Could possibly be merged into another article or articles. Not sure which. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not very well-written and needs some reformatting, but the references show that it passes the WP:GNG. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article... --Cavarrone (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Even though the current state of the article is not the best, I believe that there is enough evidence from reliable secondary sources, particularly from Indian and British publications, that show that the cartoon (or at least the controversy that it stirred) meets the general notability guideline. I would agree that a merge in an article about Indian cartoon controversies or something similar might be better suited, as it is the controversy the one that is notable, not the cartoon itself. However, there is no such article, so keeping the article seems like the best course of action at this moment. Jfgslo (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are pretty well referenced sources in the newspapers.This character is quite famous in India(in a hidden way).If you want to check the exact details of the text I doubt you will find any full fledged reference to the details just because it is taboo to talk about porn toons in India.The details of description of the character can only be found on the the home website of the toon.Vivekananda De--tAlK 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Speedy Deletion. Not an encyclopedic article. -aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Dungeon (fan made)

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

Delete I originally sent this article to AfD and argued it was a blatant hoax because no matter how stupid the average tourist may be, there was absolutely no way that you could make him pay for something that dumb. As it turns out, I'm wrong. So I simply retracted my AfD nomination. However, DynamoDegsy (talk · contribs) has asked me to renominate it. The main point is that even if this isn't a blatant hoax, the article still makes it clear that the tourist attraction doesn't exist yet and is set to open in 2012. No third-party references can be found to confirm this. Most suspicious however (and shame on me for not noticing the first time around) is, as DynamoDegsy put it, the "Great Fire segment, which tastelessly makes reference to the Bradford City stadium fire in which 56 people died." This is clear proof that the article is completely bogus. Pichpich (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's for real, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yunshui (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reference on Merlin Entertainments' The Dungeons site, and shame on me for not noticing the tasteless reference to Yorkshire Ripper/Peter Sutcliffe. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal Ball and hoax. There is no trace of this in the media announcements on the Merlin website, nothing on Google, and no location (Bradford is too vague and if planning were this far advanced the building would be chosen and at the least a planning application made). But DynamoDegsy is right - poor taste is no indication of authenticity. --AJHingston (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be hoax. Borock (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the actual franchise in question is generally considered to be pretty fun. Nevertheless this is a blatant hoax and not the only one by this users, whose edits should probably all be thoroughly checked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete, speedy G3 for being a hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find a "Bradford Dungeon" on Google, but it's not this one. And I really wish I hadn't read that page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does Wikipedia still have a BJAODN section? This might qualify... "A noose drops in front and as the hangman pulls the gallows lever and guests drop into the dark. They then exit into a Gift Shop." made me lol, anyway.Colonel Tom 03:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Initially this was my thought exactly. But as far as I can tell this is exactly what happens at the London Dungeon which appears to be at least popular enough to survive. Pichpich (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... strewth. A bad joke with legs. Thanks.Colon el Tom 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dom and Nic. Courcelles 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dom&nic

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

PROD declined by creator without adding references. Concern = Unreferenced. No sources found to support claims of notability or awards. Does not meet criteria at WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ORG criteria →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There also exists Dom and Nic, an article dating back to 2007. --GuillaumeTell 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dom and Nic (an article which exists since 20 Feb 2007) References have now been added to Dom&nic -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was not aware of the existence of the other article when I nominated this. After a discussion with the creator I think merging Dom&nic to the original article is the most appropriate solution. Without prejudice to the fact that Dom and Nic may come under review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; consider AfD for Dom and Nic separately. --Orangemike (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Rastani

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

This is not a significant person and there is no independent information about him other than the articles relating to the scandal around his television appearance, which are perfectly well documented and referenced elsewhere in wikipedia.There is no justification for a personal biography page which is merely a repetition of the same information. The individual is a self-confessed attention seeker, and it seems likely that the creation of this biography page is merely another attempt by him to establish an online identity for self-publicity purposes; it is not a page that has any merit. Rondoggy (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- The question is whether he meets WP:N/WP:BIO...not whether you dislike him (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). He is indeed a "headline-hunter"...(he has leadingtrader.com)...but he nonetheless is getting coverage (Huffington Post) and in other languages as well [16]. His life is being scrutinized in relation to the event (as a basis for ad hominem attacks).Smallman12q (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete- Don't try to reduce this to the level of personal dislike. My argument is that he is not a person of note, and therefore not worthy of having a page. I originally put up a brief piece about him, which you incorrectly removed as an ad hominem attack. You then set up a page on Mr Rastani, which rather glossed over his lack of expertise and only referenced the secondary articles that contained no additional information about the situation.

WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Everything about Mr Rastani originates from a single incident, which was the product of his own actions and subsequently revealed to be an attention seeking exercise. That incident is already covered in wikipedia (BBC Controversies). The various online stories are quotes from, or links to, the same video clip and original Telegraph article. There is no independent biographical information about Mr Rastani that hasn't originated from him! There is no interest in him outside that original event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as of yet. All information on page relates to one event. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rondoggy sums it up well. Colon el Tom 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Neff

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Recommend deletion, failing notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. If we ignore the reference that is a blogspot page, the one that doesn't even mention her, and the one of which the full text is "Charlie’s an entertainment reporter for the Logo Network show “Gossip Queens“. She also has her own entertainment blog called popinionz.com. She recently went to a party at the Playboy Mansion and she says she’s the sexiest celebrity blogger. We’re not arguing", we are left with one rather promotional page, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funakoshi karate

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Two sources are listed, one is a passing mention in a news article about a seperate topic, the other is a book which does not cover the topic at all (one minor mention of the hombu dojo in the dedication). Discussion has also taken place at creator's talkpage. Yunshui (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing that shows this is a notable style. Doing an internet search is tricky given Gichin Funakoshi's role in karate history, but I found nothing to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the dojo's website and other affiliated (and hence not useful) sources by adding Eddie Ward's name to the search query, if that helps. Obviously searching "Funakoshi +karate" is a bit like looking for the proverbial needle... Yunshui (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks reliable sources and claims of notability. It fails to pass either the general or martial arts notability criteria. It exists, but it's not notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Wadsworth's constant

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

not notable... doesn't satisfy any CSD criteria... so let's give it 7 days Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 covers non-notable web content, and this would surely apply. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of Wadsworth constant.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Peralta-Tello

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

Subject of the article fails notability guideline for tennis players. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree completely Shadowjams (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, fails NTENNIS.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw neither Davis Cup entries nor atp entries or wins. No notability here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with this --Navops47 (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The GNG can overrule Wikiproject standards, and if there are no sources, WP:V is policy. Courcelles 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIB RFC

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

fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability point 2. "Played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union". The team is a member club of the IRFU and plays in a recognised competition. See Page 74. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent source I found was this match announcement. Nothing to indicate it passes WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleer Ultra X-Men Wolverine Cards

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

fancruft, does not meet notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suggest redirecting to Fleer Ultra, but that's a redlink, therefore... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is inaccurate, no explanation of how WP:ATD were considered and rejected. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fall to me to explain how WP:ATD were considered and rejected, in fact I've never seen anyone do that. You're welcome to do that for yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while fancruft is never a reason to delete an article, I can't find much in reliable sources, including many of the trading card websites like Beckett archives. Secret ^account 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoobreak

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

There are links to reviews and publishers sites, but no deep coverage, and nothing to satisfy WP:BK. Heywoodg ^talk 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, messed up the page creation :( Heywoodg ^talk 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep good coverage on internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.220.89 (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a piece of children's fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I nominated this, I have actually changed my mind. It was nominated[[17]], and again[[18]] and has been read in schools. Not sure why I didn't pick that up before.. Heywoodg ^talk 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closing discussion as moot, article was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CReating Innovative Sustainable Pathways

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

Only sources cited are organisations involved in the project, and no independent sources can be found. Also the article seems to have been copied from various pages on CRISP Web. An article about this (CR.I.S.P.)has previously been deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official name seems to be "Creating Innovative Sustainability Pathways" - I searched for both versions of the name, and the only result for the "Sustainable" version was the Wikipedia page. Peter E. James (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no external sources (actually zero) found on Google so unable to verify, must assume not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous copyright violation and patent nonsense. Much of the text seems to have been cut and paste copied from its official site: [19][20]. The current text is unreadable bureacratese that's only superficially meaningful but actually uninformative in any case: The core objective of CRISP is to identify potential paths to engaging on an integrated effort to support the transition to a sustainable, low carbon Europe. This will be done using a scenario and back-casting approach that explicitly discerns individuals, organisations and the collective (societal and economic organisation), addresses the interaction of agency and structure, and analyses from there how individuals and collectives can be engaged on sustainable paths and how new policy mixes and co-operation mechanisms can overcome barriers to change. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep per the clear consensus and the fact that separate timelines of notable events are a standard operating procedure per WP:SUMMARY. If the timeline is covered adequately in the article itself at some point, then propose a merge. Steven Walling • talk 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Occupy Wall Street

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

Not necessary given there is already a timeline in the main article about this subject. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this was split for length per WP:SUMMARY. Given the likelihood of both parent and child articles receiving significant further development in the near future I don't see deletion here as being productive at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — The article is about a notable series of well-documented events. Disclosure: I am a very minor editor of the article. --Fayerman (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:SK before invoking speedy keep. "Speedy keep" is not the same as "strong keep", and "it's notable" is not a speedy keep criterion (nor a particularly valid regular one, per WP:ITSNOTABLE). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination falls under nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question, looked at the file license at all, etc. If you look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street, there's a copyedit to-do list stating that "[chronology] goes too much in details about incidents and arrests, which can be moved to the chronology article". User:AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER states that "there is already a timeline in the main article about this subject", which is not really true. There's an abridged list that covers a few days, which should be merged with this article. This nomination is disruptive and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. --Fayerman (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default to Keep A timeline is not unreasonable. Clearly, to me anyway, WP's treatment of this event is dominated by those trying to promote it or discourage it. A proper article will have to wait. Deleting this article is not really helpful right now. Borock (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... per the widely cited essay (i.e., not wikipedia policy) called WP:RECENT , side articles are a good way to pull together quickly developing content that clutters up the main article, especially as we won't know what is important and what is not until perhaps months and years later. Discussion on the main article talk page anticipates that this timeline could become very long, and so a separate article is probably a good thing to keep for now. (Full disclosure: I have not edited this article series at all and don't really have a dog in this fight.) MPS (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anonymous user here. I have not edited this article or any other relevant articles. However, a cursory glance at the main article Occupy Wall Street leads me to the same conclusion as Fayerman. There is a brief timeline in the main article that is far more fleshed out here. This article should stay. A quick search shows that many other articles also utilize this approach --small chronology in main article with link to full timeline. Examples are World War II with timeline page Timeline of World War II (which indeed breaks the timeline down into even finer grains by examining each year) and the much more recent 2011 Egyptian Revolution with timeline page Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.124.50 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the version in the main article should be substantially shortened, probably to a single paragraph or something along those lines, but certainly not bulleted points. Leave the bullets to this new article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was obviously split for purposes of summary. There is no justification for deleting a well sourced, articulate, and comprehensive article, list, or timeline, on the basis that an incomplete, poorly sourced version exists elsewhere. That's why we have Template:Main. --Cast (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' this seems to be an allowed fork to keep the main article in summary style --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conceivably the timeline will get longer as the story quickly develops and new cities participate, so that will result in a large amount of data which would be cumbersome to maintain on the main page. As a journalist, having this timeline set apart from the main article is much easier for me to scan quickly for data. Please keep. --Cicero in utero (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Cicero in utero[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Curileac

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to meet WP:GNG, and since he has not played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to Romaniansoccer.ro, Curileac never appeared for CFR Cluj and so he has never played in a fully-pro league. He also gets only routine coverage and fails the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-compliant article by this editor. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE mentions only. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Malek Bir Pratik

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

A former Havildar (Sergeant) in the Bangladesh army. He was awarded the Bir Protik, the fourth highest military award in Bangladesh. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Only source I can find is the PR release found in a few newspapers by the Inter-Service Public Relations Directorate (ISPR), the media relations branch of the Bangladesh military. Bir Pratik/Bir Protik is an honorary title. I see it spelled both ways. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons as given by nominator. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I did try and improve the article at first, I have to concur with the nominator - the award doesn't seem as major as I first thought. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The subject seems to have won two other military awards for another war as well. The info is unreferenced, though. Other than the awards, I didn't find anything notable about the subject. --Ragib (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The other awards aren't listed at Awards and decorations of the Pakistan Armed Forces. They're probably just campaign medals. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well short of the standard of WP:MILPEOPLE. If the article is kept, it should be at "Abdul Malek" - "Bir Pratik" is a decoration and (though I can't put my finger on the policy at the moment) we don't include those in article titles - e.g. Leonard Cheshire not "Leonard Cheshire V.C." JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is kept, it should not be at "Abdul Malek", since that is a single fairly common given name. He must have a real surname of some sort but the article doesn't reveal it, so we'd have to go with "Abdul Malek (Bir Pratik)" or the like. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly suspect that SPA user Kemdad (talk · contribs), created 08:44 2 October, is a sock of Daadnepleon (talk · contribs) who I blocked for three days at 19:01 1 October for repeatedly removing speedy tags from an earlier version of this article, but I do not think it worth raising an SPI yet. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quacking is indeed deafening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the lack of "signficant coverage" in WP:RS means the subject is non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete votes (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardial Bains

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

Fails the notability criteria for politicians. Probably fails the general notability criteria. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bains played an important role on the left in Ireland in the 1960s. For years the group he founded, the Internationalists, stimulated political debate there, was influential in student movements and protests and led directly or indirectly to the setting up of other organizations. He founded the Hindustani Ghadar Party (HGP) in the late sixties and the HGP(OIMLA) in the seventies. He was also the founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (M-L), Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, Communist Party of Ireland (M-L) and the Communist Ghadar Party of India. This article was created back in 2006, has had contributions from several dozen editors and AFAIAA has never been the subject of a deletion request, so I'm very surprised at this move. Hohenloh⁺ 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article briefly mentions books by Bains. These alone probably establish notability:

Hardial Bains. The Question is Really One of Word and Deed (pamphlet), Progressive Cultural Association, 1997. ISBN 978-0953008308.

Hardial Bains. The Call of the Martyrs: On the Crisis in India and the Present Situation in the Punjab. National Publications Centre, 1985. ISBN 978-0888031334.

Hardial Bains. Communism 1989-1991, Ideological Studies Centre, 1991.

..... there are others too.

Books about HB include:

Politicians in Ontario, Including: John Stachow, Hardial Bains, Greg Kells, Ian Orenstein, Paul Fromm (Activist), Michael Baldasaro, John Steele. Onta by Hephaestus Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1242615597.

Canadian Communists, Including: Sandra L. Smith, Hardial Bains, Fred Rose (Politician), Margaret Fairley, Stanley Brehaut Ryerson, J. B. Salsberg, A. by Hephaestus Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1242629198.

I don't know if Leninism.org is an approved source, but since it describes Bains as a "charlatan" that probably makes him notable as a communist figure big enough to be worth attacking:

Ben Seattle. In memory of a charlatan. 5 April 1998. http://www.leninism.org/stream/96/charlatan.htm

CBC Digital Archives has 'Marxist-Leninists seek mass appeal', broadcast 3 Feb 1980. http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/parties_leaders/clips/17078/

Modern Communism has a series of 3 articles on HB's political legacy. http://www.modern-communism.ca/mc33003.htm.

That's probably enough to demonstrate notability? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a federal party leader for 27 years, he is notable. 117Avenue (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per Chiswick Chap (WP:GNG). 117Avenue, this is not what WP:POLITICIAN says. — CharlieEchoTango — 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra L. Smith

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

Fails the notability criteria for politicians and the general notability criteria. Never elected, no sources of substance, etc. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at 69 candidates in the latest election, the party is big enough to have an article for its leader. 117Avenue (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not what WP:POLITICIAN says. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion (...)." — CharlieEchoTango — 16:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to need its own article, its only source is from the party's website. Aaaccc (talk), 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), unless there is usable content here that isn't there already (I don't think there is), in which case merge. As leader for ten years of a politically active party, people might well be searching for her, but there really doesn't seem to be the content for a separate article. PWilkinson (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently significant party for the national leader to be notable as an individual. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain the rationale behind the party's alleged sufficient significance and how your keep vote relates to established guidelines, namely WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. (more complete reply here) — CharlieEchoTango — 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), or to the article about Hardial Bains, her late husband who founded the party. He appears to be notable; she does not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PWilkinson. Colon el Tom 03:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2006 in Busan

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

also nominating:

here we go again, another useless series of results of events to qualify for other events. fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. those wanting to keep must show evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG — CharlieEchoTango — 05:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These are some of the biggest and most historically significant events ever held in kickboxing. Many of them feature Grand Prixs which determine the best fighters in the region, and which allows them qualify for the World GP at the end of the year. World class and World champion fighters are featured. - Minowafan (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources to back your claim for historically significant as per WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Only the Busan event was even a qualifying event to advance to the next round. No indication of anything besides routine sports coverage. They lack notability and independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist). The "keep" !voters have failed to make policy-based arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Di Carlo

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

Fails the notability criteria for politicians and the general notability criteria. Never elected, no sources of substance, etc. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at 70 candidates in the last election, the party is big enough to have an article for its leader. 117Avenue (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not what WP:POLITICIAN says. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion (...)." — CharlieEchoTango — 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous. Hohenloh⁺ 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to make a separate article necessary. Aaaccc (talk), 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep a little borderline, but qualifies by reasonable judgment as leader of a significant national party. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant how? This is a fringe party that has candidates in less than 1/4th of the ridings in Canada in which they gather a couple dozens votes (in the best cases, one or two hundreds) out of ~100,000 voters. While the party has generated some coverage in reliable sources, this individual has not. I'll be happy to withdraw if someone can come up with something that satisfies either WP:POLITICIAN or the universal fallback, WP:GNG. As far as I know both guidelines are not met, and the three keep votes cite a vague concept of inherent notability that does not rely on established guidelines. — CharlieEchoTango — 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). The party may be notable; she is not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination was to argue keep ... but the article makes no reference to anything she's done other than lead the party, she's already in the party's article - and the party only pulled 0.28% of the vote in the ridings they contested in 2011. Redirect to party page. Colon el Tom 03:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Chick

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

only reference is a "dictionary" of economists aprock (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—for goodness' sake, h-index of 21 per gscholar, wrote a book with close to 500 citations. meets WP:PROF with ease. perhaps nom would consider withdrawing the whole pile of these to save everyone some time? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete as the source provided is a biographical dictionary and so is an excellent one for this purpose. More sources are readily available such as Essays in Honour of Victoria Chick which includes a history of her academic life. Warden (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw I'm happy to withdraw this. aprock (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on GS cites alone. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn, all other votes are keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Newhouse

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

no reliable secondary sourcing establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—please stop it, i'm not even doing h-index on this one as he obviously meets WP:PROF both #2 and #3.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I can see why the named chair at Harvard would have stopped Alf.laylah.wa.laylah from looking further (and it should have stopped the nominator). But if one did look, one would find that his top publication has 3000 citations and that his h-index appears to be 79. These are stellar numbers, far higher than we usually see here and far higher than is needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. Not to mention 138 hits in Google news archive... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw I'm happy to withdraw this. aprock (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2 and/or WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kolstad

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

No reliable secondary sources establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Keep Passes criteria 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. Obviously a keeper as he is head editor of a major journal, and a former president of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. LK (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chair of a department in a major university. Also likely meets the GNG. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Harwood

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

Entire article is sourced to the subject and subject's son, plus a couple industry newsletters aprock (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw aprock (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Lebedev

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

non notable BLP; only secondary source appears to be a russian newsletter aprock (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable sources. While there may be sourcing concerns with this batch of nominations, I concur with the comments in other nominations of this group that there are serious concerns whether or not the nominator followed WP:BEFORE and consulted WP:PROF before cluster-bombing AfD with these nominations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. The fact that one of his books sold more than 7 million times is notable. Vice-president of Yukos. Newspaper is notable. Echoing Bushranger; sources in a foreign language are acceptable. You might want to read our guidelines, especially about notability, such as WP:N, WP:GNG. Deletion is not the right option; it needs improvements.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From my reading, he seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC - but perhaps I'm missing something? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Stanger

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

only secondary source is appearance on The Daily Show aprock (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first I thought the nominator's scattershot approach to academic AfDs had hit a good target, because there was nothing in the article as nominated that would suggest a pass of WP:PROF. But I think she does pass, by virtue of her named chair, and that she also passes WP:GNG for the continuing media attention to her book "One Nation Under Contract". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep David Eppstein said it all →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Clear notability, if only from the book and the continuing media coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Glennerster

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

only sources are infocards and cv, no secondary sourcing establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should be admonished to follow WP:BEFORE — there are plenty of articles in Google news, in sources of the highest prominence, that mention her: e.g. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Most only mention her trivially, but I am finding pretty strong coverage both for her book "Strong Medicine" (e.g. the Times Higher Education review) and her studies of whether microfinance works (e.g. the Boston Globe story). I think that may be enough for WP:GNG. And the Google scholar citations tell the same story (over 100 citations for each, and also for her article on how to use randomization in studies of developmental economics) giving a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per David Eppstein, who went and found every reason i could find, so i have little to add but my concurrence.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw I am happy to withdraw this AfD. aprock (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Gaviria

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

all sources are self, faculty cards, or lists of pubs, no secondary sourcing establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavily cited for an academic working in the third world — Google scholar lists four papers with over 100 citations each and an overall h-index of, I think, 21 (it's a little hard to tell because in this case GS is being worse than usual at sorting the papers by citation count). I think it's enough for WP:PROF#C1. Being dean is not a WP:PROF criterion and I don't really know how to evaluate the medal, but those both indicate that the high citation count is not an outlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with GS h-index somewhere around 20. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Agree that he meets the requirements for an authority in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Ram

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

only source is a faculty info card aprock (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—per usual argument: guy has a gscholar h-index in low 30s by my count. meets WP:PROF according to usual standards.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a distinguished professor he meets WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw Withdrawing afd. aprock (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close as keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete arguments remaining. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Smith (historian)

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

Only source is local obit. aprock (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PROF ("The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."). One source behind a paywall (headline "Professor earns national award") looks potentially interesting as well, if only I could see it! ([26]). Bencherlite ^Talk 05:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The named chair is enough for WP:PROF, and the two published obituaries are enough for sourcing. Also, I found a different article on the award mentioned by Bencherlite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw: I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. aprock (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip B. Coulter

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

All sources for the article are self published. aprock (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—although h-index is low but solid at 12, the awards give him wp:prof#2 with ease, esp:Outstanding Academic Book Award (for his Political voice), The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), straight from article. there are other qualifying characteristics as well, but this one is enough.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw Thank you for the feedback, I'm happy to withdraw this afd. aprock (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Antinori (Attorney, Author)

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

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

Non notable author and book; neither the author nor the book has significant coverage in reliable sources. For the author, the references and google searches I did turn up trivial references with little depth. For the book, there isn't any significant reviews in reliable sources I would expect of a notable book, per WP:GNG. Both articles also eggregiously violate WP:COATRACK as they serve primarily to push the opinion that the author expounds upon in his book; there are WP:COI issues as the sole major editor to either article is likely either the author themselves or a person working for the author to promote the author's opinion. Jayron32 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Paul Antinori. As an author, I can find no substantiation for notability. However, he was elected as a State Attorney, and in this role, he did receive coverage, some which is noted in the article. There's more. [27], [28]. He also contested a congressional seat [29], but lost. There's also plenty of biographical material in this story. As for the book, redirect to the article on Paul Antinori. The book isn't notable but can be covered lightly in the article. - Whpq (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per my standards and Whpq. He was state's (district) attorney, he tried notable cases and appeals, and he ran for Congress (although that alone is not to make him notable). His advocacy of minor amendments to the US Constitution are not notable, so there is no need for a separate article about his book, which should be merged. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that a county states attorney is intrinsically notable, and that very weak claim to fame is being used as a coattrack for the constitutional section which is self-published and clearly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being a state attorney, all by itself, probably does not meet WP:POLITICIAN with respect to holding a state level office as the jurisdiction is at the county level (I think). However, as an elected official, in his capacity as state attorney, he did gain press coverage as shown in the links above. Note that this term as a state attorney comes well before the advent of the Internet, so there's likely very many more sources offline that cover him. So I believe that any issue of intrinsic notability is really irrelevant due to newspaper coverage. I (and I believe Bearian) agree that his books are not notable. However, the coatrack aspect of the biography can be dealt with through normal editting to trim that back. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that coverage, but as I recollect it is the sort of coverage that anyone in such a position is almost certain to get. And Bearian, I would presume just the opposite: that he did not prosecute notable cases or appeals, because if they were notable, we would be able to refer back to him from the articles which we could write on those cases. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, let me be clear that I think being state's attorney is only one factor for notability, and does not create automatic notability per POLITICIAN. I assumed good faith that the claims in the article can be sourced. Of course, my opinion is not policy, and if the facts can't be verified, then I would go along with deletion. I, too, am concerned that the facts are being used as a COATRACK. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, a State Attorney has statewide jurisdiction. They're basically the State's "CLO" (Chief Legal Officer) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the district website says. He functioned as the prosecutor of a small section of the state of Florida. Mangoe (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The State Attorney is an elected county level position. It is not a statewide office. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread; I was thinking the State Attorney-General, not a State Attorney. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 10 October 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his State Attorney position seems to be being used as a COATRACK for an article on constitutional reform. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The coatracking can be dealth with through editting. What is you opinion on notability? -- Whpq (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no notability for the non-COATRACK material. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A wholly promotional article. I don't think there would be enough left to constitute an article after removing the promotion, and I would therefore think it might even be liable to G11. And I agree that the comment that he holds a statewide office is not correct. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the person and the book. He does not appear to have held statewide office, and the cases he prosecuted do not add to his notability even though the cases themselves may have been reported on. I agree with the comments above that both of these articles appear to be merely coatracks to promote Antinori's proposal for a constitutional convention (an idea which gets proposed all the time by many people for many reasons; there does not appear to be anything particularly notable about his proposal). The two articles were created by the same editor. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Tebo - Actress

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

Unremarkable actress whose only credits to date are future releases. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 04:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her movie, Barbie, is being premiered on October 7th, 2011 in Korea at Lotte Cinema Centum City 5 BIFF.rk User:Russofford. —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You stipulate that she qualifies under what part of NACTOR, then? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR, as pointed out by nominator.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 13:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Cute youngster who might have a long career ahead of her... but for now, the current shortness of her career fails WP:ENT and the lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any present notability.Vincelord (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sydney Girls High School. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SGHS Rowing Club

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

High School rowing club. The sources are either non-independent or non-substantial. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sydney Girls High School. I think that the rowing club is significant enough to warrant mention on wikipedia, but not notable enough to stand by itself. I think that the content should be merged with the existing article. The article could be userfied to User:MozzazzoM (otherwise I'll step forward), who can then take responsibility for adding the content. ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth a merge to Sydney Girls High School. Rowing is a surprisingly big sport in these sort of schools, see Head of the River (Australia) for example. Jenks24 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It scores one unambiguously significant mention in the state's major newspaper, so it's borderline passing GNG already. Agree that the additional sources are primary or directory listings and thus do nothing to demonstrate notability. I'd say if the article creator or anyone else can drum up another RSS, that'd be a keep.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main school article, where it adds further notability to the school itself. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boom (band)

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

Non-notable band with non-notable people from other non-notable bands with a non-notable single on a non-notable label. Their claim to fame is that people that went to Harvard in 1980 may have liked their one single they made. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mostly found links that use this article. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable non-notability. I couldn't find any references. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Chi

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

This was deleted by PROD in 2008, but undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it and bring it here. This is no doubt a worthy organization, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause; for a local student organization, notability requires showing more than local coverage, see WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life, and I have not found any. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at only a single university are typically non-notable, and no independent sources have been provided. The only references I can find to this fraternity in independent sources appear to be passing mentions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and Metropolitan90. I recall that in the past we have deleted single-chapter Greek societies. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nathalie Doucet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InvestFashion

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

fails WP:CORP. a mere 2 gnews hits [30]. looks like an WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; advertisement for a non-notable online business. This "crowdfunding" gimmick merits watching. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to organization's founder Nathalie Doucet. Rednevog (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Close because of how few !votes there are, but I see a weak consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Orford

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a notable part of various notable shows. And he does get news coverage. Just search his name with any show he has been a part of, and you'll find coverage of him. [31] Dream Focus 12:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tv presenter, no assertion that he is individually notable - redirect to The Big Breakfast - his historic most notablle connection. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lookingat the article, there seem insufficient references to justify keeping this very marginal BLP. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warwide

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked for references using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found zero search results. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: An article rescue tag and a blog were added to the article. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in the slightest. Nowhere near enough independent sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. BLP with no consensus for deletion after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

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

Not notable or any serious assertion of notability. No third party refs despite being tagged for 3 months Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Velella. I can't find any worthwhile sources. CityO fSilver 22:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article in Dawn would appear to indicate likely notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is a notable television host who hosted the reality show Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?) and has also appeared in many other television programs. He is notable, which is further corroborated by the link provided by Phil Bridger. Mar4d (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find heaps of videos of this person on YouTube starring in dramas, television serials, reality shows etc., many of which have hundreds of thousands of views. Mar4d (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is delete. GB fan 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Force

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

Non-notable amateur programmers, article was created by an IP back when we had a much lower threshold, hasn't improved since. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This deletion seems pretty uncontroversial --Hazillow (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. after 2 relists, no consensus on this BLP DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Richardson

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

This article is a borderline case, but I don't think it passes the notabiity criterion of WP:BIO. There are plenty of sources, but most of them self-published or unreliable; few of the third-party sources cover him in any real detail beyond trivial coverage, and some don't even mention him by name. A Google search doesn't provide much more. There are a lot of minor achievements here - finalist in a comedy award, created a few popular internet memes, commissioned to make a brief comedy video for the BBC - but I don't think that, taken as a whole, they add up to notability by our standards. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note that shortly after creating this article, the creator of it blanked it: [32] Does that mean even he doesn't want it himself? If so, this should be a speedy deletion candidate under WP:G7. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources despite the lengthy list of references in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets coverage in reliable sources already in the article. http://www.sport.co.uk/features/Football/1366/Sky_Sports_News_Funeral_Behind_the_Scenes.aspx is ample coverage of him. Major newspapers do cover his fake Foster ad, and other his album cover thing. Its hard to search for such a common name, and he has also gone by the name Tony Richardson, which is also hard to sort through all the Google archive news results. Dream Focus 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Ottawa sewer explosion

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

does not meet the general notability guideline SunKing2 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable event in Ottawa history. It's discussed at some length in this book, and elsewhere. The New York Times covered it, so it wasn't just a local story, either. Zagalejo^^^ 03:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the excellent research done by Zagalejo. Great sources - well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the book source was already used in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find that many sources on it, nor can I see why this is notable. Seems like a very small event. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two sources mentioned, Harizotoh9, which make it clear that it was not a "very small event"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more refs. But i am neutral on the deletion - just not sure so should error on the side of keep. Moxy (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cullen328's agreement. It is a well done article but must be improved. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Keep Interesting topic, meets WP:N "worthy of notice" because people like to read about disasters, meets WP:GNG, with multiple significant sources. I don't see any newspaper articles yet, which would suggest that a long series of articles about the explosion and responses to the explosion are available. The book states that the Ottawa Gas Company argued "in the press and in advertisements", so it is not just likely that more sources exist, we have a reliable source that says they exist. Going on, the book mentions a running series of events that connect the 29 May 1929 explosion to the 31 March 1931 burning of the Ottawa City Hall, which is not surprising to think that a disaster of this magnitude would take more than a year to resolve. Nominator argues on the talk page that "it was not demonstrated that it had any effects other than those of the event itself", but wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on WP or the content of any such article. Further arguments on the talk page make the same error by arguing to the content of the existing article, yet the sources that had already been supplied for the article answered some of the concerns stated. As for the issue that the nominator found history books that did not mention the event, this would argue against the WP:N requirement that a topic be "worthy of notice", and yet by other reasoning as already explained and as shown by the variety of the three references, the topic is encyclopedic. Here is a puzzling claim,
Duration of coverage (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE): there is no evidence presented to show that this event's coverage was beyond its occurrence in time.

Just how is a 1969 journal article and two-three pages in a book written in 2001 for an event in 1929 not continued coverage? Claim is made to WP:GEOSCOPE, but we do not have a case where the event was only reported by local media, the argument doesn't make sense given that no local media had been cited. Here is a related statement,

Diversity of sources (WP:DIVERSE): there is no showing that the event was covered beyond the local newspapers.

It makes no sense to argue against coverage in local newspapers when no local newspapers had been provided for the article. As for those local newspapers, I've found them, they exist in Google News archive. This link Google news archive shows many articles from the Ottawa Citizen. Shown is that John Campbell, an engineer from Boston, investigated the explosions and released a report in about 1931. The same year, there was another sewer explosion, and as reported in The Toronto Star, the city lost a lawsuit in 1936 due to liability that links the 1931 explosion back to the 1929 explosion. Another search in the Google news archive is "Campbell report". And I've added two of these newspaper articles as Bibliography entries. Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Turn

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

Independent film without a distributor, so it hasn't been released yet. I can find no evidence of meeting criteria of WP:NFILM. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film was completed on September 27, 2011. It is scheduled for its first premiere on October 15, 2011. After readying the guild-lines, it is obviously a judgement call as to what can be considered relevant material for Wikipedia. I would argue that this is news for the town of Shreveport, Louisiana and it is relevant because it is the Directing day bu for a well known screen play writer Robert Orr (Underworld: Rise of the Lycans) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydeewalters (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Jaydeewalters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:NFILM, can't find no reliable sources, which IMDB isn't. Secret ^account 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This film stars Rachel Boston (a well known actress) and it is just a matter of time before there are many articles on the film. I agree that it may have been listed prematurely, but to delete it would be counter productive. To state that anybody can get listed on www.imdb.com is correct, but the credits of the film producer (Molly M. Mayeux) and director (Robert Orr) can not be disputed. Jaydeewalters (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote twice and saying that "it's a matter of time before there are many articles on the film" is WP:CRYSTAL Secret ^account 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once there is significant coverage about the film in reliable sources, then an article can be included on Wikipedia. It's not counterproductive to wait for the subject to attain notability. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. Deletion is not counterproductive in this case as article content needs to be verifiable. Without good sources, that can't be done. If it's especially relevant to any of the actors or the director, include it on their page(s) instead when there's a source besides IMDB to confirm details. §everal⇒|Times 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the topic appears to lack significant coverage from reliable sources. It's not the kind of film to receive coverage before its release, so I'm fine with article recreation if post-release coverage does emerge. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that one of the actors in the film is a certain Jay Dee Walters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A certain who? §everal⇒|Times

Delete untill and unless relaible sources can be found to demonstrate notability (most likely upon its release). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was chucked. Redirecting somewhere, if desired, can be WP:BOLDly done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chucking (basketball)

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

Total OR. This term doesn't have any major coverage in RS's, and probably won't ever, other then just uses of the word, which isn't the same. Some of the sentences ("Chucking is generally not considered to be in the flow of the game.", "This tactic usually comes from the less athletic, less coordinated people", etc.) are just cringe-inducing. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's probably not viable as a stand-alone article, but it might merit an entry at the Glossary of basketball terms. We could use this or this as a source. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've since added a brief entry at the glossary article. I think we should redirect this article there. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe The article attempts to explain the topic, not just the word. I learned something reading it. However I can't say keep without sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material in the article is dubious. I've never heard anyone use chucking to refer to intentionally missed free throws. Zagalejo^^^ 04:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ball hog. Same concept. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ball-hogging is a somewhat broader concept. Chucking is really just about shot selection. Zagalejo^^^ 01:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so that the creator can't undo a redirect. Original research; not a common term (even in streetball language). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've watched and played too many hours of basketball to count and the only person I have ever heard use this term was Shooter from Hoosiers. Rikster2 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition or an unsourced original essay, your choice. The term itself is authentic. Suitable for Urban Dictionary, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, perhaps a redirect to Baron Davis, ha ha! Carrite (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kimble

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

Never played in a regular season game of professional football. Isn't notable by WP: Notability (sports) William 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — William 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — William 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing a noteworthy college career and appears to not be playing professionally. Will change my position if additional information is introduced. Close for me, but not quite there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't qualify as a pro and I couldn't find any independent, reliable coverage via a quick google search to support notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did he play in the CFL? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The CFL website has no stats for him.- William 01:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Nonny

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

NO reliable source to verify the player exist (i don't know Malay-Indonesian but they use Latin charactor) Google hit was the echo of wikipeida, user based transfermarketweb, yet semi-user based zerozero (as they welcome data submission to admins) and soccerway who sometimes copy information from the web (soccerway statics was reliable and no more) Matthew_hk t c 00:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. If we can confirm that he played for Heartland F.C., he would meet WP:NSPORT, but as it stands he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Feikin

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

Sure, the doctor is published in the New York Times, but the article doesn't assert his importance. I removed the "Awards" Section as it was unsourced. Also, his bio was a copyvio which I also removed intelati talk 00:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Has a GS h-index of 24 in the bio-med field. May be sufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC; some of his articles have been cited hundreds of times. I added some information and references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient evidence for notability as researcher and administrator. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Raines

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

Prod (by another user) deleted by IP without explanation. TV personality that doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - Sources exist.[33][34][35] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undistinguished local TV weather reporter with no sources establishing sufficient notability beyond the local community. The sources provided by Peregrine above are a trivial blog post, a local article about how some crazy woman was convicted of stalking the subject, and a google search with only 170 hits, all of them of only local significance at best. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and there is no indication that suficient sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:23, 2 October 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) 00:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see hundreds of mentions in reliable sources. Though many are trivial, some are certainly not. For example, this is 285 words about Raines including discussion of his professional credentials, this which discusses several weather broadcasters, saying "KABC's Dallas Raines by far is the best. Always cheerful with a hopeful attitude", this which includes the lines, "On television, the weatherman is upstaging the anchor man. Dallas Raines has replaced Fabio as a cult figure. (And has almost as much hair.) People try desperately to memorize that five-day forecast they flash across the screen for three seconds", and this, which says " TV weatherman Dallas Raines demonstrated on Thursday that he's a lot more than just a weather-hunk meteorologist with a perpetual tan. The KABC (Channel 7) personality is also a college instructor at California State University, Northridge, and by all accounts, a pretty effective one.Lecturing to a standing-room-only audience of 40 undergraduates, Raines, 43, discoursed on atmospheric pressure, El Nino and south swells.", continuing for total of 436 words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. Well known media figure in one of the world's largest markets. Here's another instance of substantial coverage[36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. This has been listed since 9/26/11. Good rescue, folks. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punk house

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

No references. Redirect to squatters? Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Punk houses are a well known and documented phenomenon distinct from squatting, though the two certainly overlap sometimes. I've added a couple references. Clearly meets WP:GNG now; sources are reliable, independent and constitute significant coverage. Gobonobo ^T ^C 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—this: (Abby Banks; Thurston Moore (1 October 2007). Punk house: interiors in anarchy. Abrams Image. ISBN 978-0-8109-9331-0.) puts it easily within WP:GNG. There are also many articles on gnews that discuss the concept, many of which are now cited in the article. the article is not in perfect shape, but the notability of the punk house as a concept seems to me to be unassailable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources establish notability for the topic: [37], [38], [39], and [40]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amble coverage found. Please follow WP:BEFORE and at the very least spend a few seconds checking the Google news archive. The very first entry is from the New York Times and gives ample coverage to what you will find in a punk house. Dream Focus 10:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" !voters don't seem to agree with the nominator's analysis of several of the sources. However, there is sufficient doubt about whether the coverage is WP:ROUTINE to prevent a solid "keep" consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comptel

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

6 references are as follows:

A Comptel guide, which must be ignored as it is self-published, per WP:COI.
Techcrunch refers to a sale of the company to Cisco, and does not express any notability about the company, only that it was sold.
Billingworld refers to a contract, and is more a description of routine work, not notability.
Connectedplanet is also a contract/routine explanation of the company, therefore not notable.
Both marketwire articles appear self-promotional, and followed the second one to the "World Vendor Awards 2011" results and it seems Copmtel didn't even win an award, so the link to it being "a Finalist" is moot - it didn't win, therefore no longer a notable article.

As none of these references follow WP:CORP guidelines sufficiently, the article should be considered non-notable. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 11:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basing notability judgements on the article alone was a mistake - what is important is that the company really does meet inclusion requirements, and that the article therefore needs improvement, not deletion. The company is listed on NASDAQ: WP:LISTED notes that this does not automatically confer notability but is a signal that it should be easy to find, and suggests Hoover's as a starting point. Hoover's does indeed have a report available for this Company. Online searches for the company produce independent, reliable coverage (admittedly a lot of press releases have to be filtered out, though) and WP:GNG appears to be met. As for the awards - you are right it was only a finalist at the 2011 World Vendor Awards, but it did actually win it in 2010. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another international software company specialising in telecommunications. References are to routine deals reported on IT trade blogs or PR aggregators. They record routine transactions about asset acquisitions or contracts entered, rather than encyclopedically notable achievements, and are fairly obviously based on press releases rather than genuinely independent sources. Google News finds some incidental mentions revolving around a lobbying scandal, but there's nothing about that in this article and I suspect that this coverage can tell us very little about this business itself. No showing of significant effects on history, technilogy, or culture of the sort that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - These two sources qualify topic notability AOL TechCrunch article and Billing & OSS World article. Perhaps there are more reliable sources available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 871 news results to sort through. The first is from the Washington Post, linking to an article no longer there, but if you search on their website you can see the title Cisco To Buy Comptel's Axioss Software Assets For $31 Million In Cash. Others have found coverage and mentioned it above already. Dream Focus 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect if you wish, but I don't find it useful as a search term since they'll have already typed in "Josh Todd" before they get to "(band)". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Todd (band)

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

Orphaned article, no additional content than Josh Todd. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Josh Todd as this article on a backing band does not expand in any way on that article and there is no assertion that the group has notability in their own right (given that notability can't be inherited from the focal point, Josh Todd himself). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect. I don't think the band were notable enough to warrant their own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heywoodg (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. By the way, since Billboard charts are based on factual data, copyvio doesn't come into play here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011

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

An indiscriminate collection of information, also very much a chart trajectory listing entry into the top 10 (not the chart itself, but the top 10 of the chart), the date it peaked on the chart, and how many weeks on the chart. Almost impossible to source adequately: if every little detail isn't stated in a book such as by Joel Whitburn, ever single week by week chart would have to be referenced to indicate all this info, which just leans it more and more to a case of WP:IINFO. Except for #1's, a single chart cannot verify a song's peak position. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sounds to be a well defined list, and will be useful to locate and link the popular K-pop stuff. This list needs expansion though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 1 October 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, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is supposed to be for lasting articles about topics, not for lists that change from week to week. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the year is finished then the list will not change any more and it is well defined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Graeme Bartlett. At the end of year, the list will stop changing. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the copying of top ten info (why stop at 10?) from a weekly chart without adequate sourcing. If it's a list of top ten songs, why do we need to know how many weeks and where it peaked. Too much extraneous info beyond the definition of the list that cannot be properly sourced. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't this fall under the "reproduction of top-10 lists is likely copyvio" thingy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.julpan.com/about.html
^ http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/speakers.html
^ Adam Schuck Linkedin Profile, [http://www.linkedin.com/in/aschuck
^ Techcrunch – Google Wave The Full Video from Google IO, [41]
^ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5227204.htm
^ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5227204.htm

[1] ttps://www.julpan.com/about.html

[2] ttps://www.google.com/events/io/2010/speakers.html

[3] Adam Schuck Linkedin Profile, [http://www.linkedin.com/in/aschuck

[4] Techcrunch – Google Wave The Full Video from Google IO, [41]

[5] ttps://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5227204.htm

[6] ttps://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5227204.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]