Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 16

< 15 February	17 February >

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 per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome sauce

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

Fails Wp:NEO. Was PRODed, template removed. One of those awkward pages that doesn't easily fit into any CSD class. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT Studerby (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO appears to have been written with this kind of thing in mind. I'll point out that the result of the last afd involved wp:snow... ErikHaugen (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:G3? Take your pick. — Rankiri (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dissolve with a mixture of HP Sauce, Worcestor Sauce, Ketchup, Tabasco and Gentlemen's Relish, then it can be poured into urban dictionary where it belongs.Amentet (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total fail on where the term came from; I heard it as early as 2007! Per all of Rankiri's reasonings, and maybe we can pour this sauce onto a WP:TROUT for the creator. Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this definition is totally wrong, and not the common defintion of the internet meme. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. In fairness to the article creator, though, this article does not contain nonsensical claims about the origin of the term, as the article deleted in 2006 did. Rather, this version limits itself to exaggerated claims about how popular the term is. I guess that's an improvement ... but not enough to overcome WP:NEO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that I gave when I prodded it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awesome article, to be sure, but it looks like someone in Smith Falls is getting cabin fever. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - awesome joke, awesomely unencyclopedic.--Kudpung (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Per the above. Looks like its time to give this an early closure, per WP:SNOWBALL, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nonsense. –Grondemar 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's funny, but it's also unsourced inappropriate unencyclopedic pov nonsense. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star jelly

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

This is a conglomeration of a variety of stories all having the theme of there being a thick unknown substance. Essentially none of the references use the term "star jelly" and many of the references don't even reference the heavens in their description of the mush. This, therefore, is an original research synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is about the concept, not the word. Synthesis requires putting forth a new view, not combining synonyms from disparate works. The references need to be formatted and external links converted into inline citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cites and quotes enough sources to show this is a real concept. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a case of undue synthesis. Instead it describes a lot of cases of what is generally termed star jelly by outside sources. The article doesn't claim anything novel/unique/unciteable using external sources — as is typical for WP:OR. Otherwise the article is a little unstructured and the topic is IMHO very weird, but there's nothing in it that would make it subject to deletion, irrespective of the article topic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: ScienceApologist is wrong in claiming that the outside sources doesn't use the term "star jelly". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems counterfactual and the topic is quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and our fringe theory rules. It does not violate our rules on making an undue synthesis, as much of it is exact quotes. If anything, it needs copyediting. This nomination is another of the "I'm embarrassed" variety. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources like this and this (which were already cited in the article) clearly use the term star jelly and do discuss the belief that it falls from the sky. Zagalejo^^^ 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator.Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing at all wrong here. Beach drifter (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness Quotient

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

Non-notable theory, presentation more than slightly promotional of the author's work. Currently an exact copy of a paper presented by the page creator, deleted as a copyvio and restored after license permission received via WP:OTRS. All citations currently in the article are to the author's own work, apparently presentations of this same paper or a similar one. The conference at which this was presented does not appear to constitute peer-reviewed publication. A search on '"Consciousness Quotient" Brazdau' found no hits on Google Scholar or Google news, and the only hits on Google web were to versions of this paper, presentations of it by this author, or pages posted by this author, no independent uses at all, let alone reliable sources. As per WP:FRINGE the theory of a single author, with no wider support, and no relevant outside discussion, is not notable. Fails the general notability guideline and does not meet WP:N. DES ^(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my own nomination. DES ^(talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, basically a non-notable theory comprising WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically it isn't WP:OR in the Wikipedia sense. The theory has been published elsewhere, and that publication cited. It is fine to report here original research first published elsewhere, provided that it is notable and not given undue weight. Similarly, outside sources may (and often should) engage in synthesis and we report the results here. If there was significant secondary discussion of this theory -- even if it was all in opposition to the theory -- it might well be notable enough for inclusion. In such a case WP:OR and WP:SYNTH would not be valid grounds for deletion. But so far there is no evidence that anyone beyond the author has paid attention to this theory, so it is not notable enough for inclusion here. DES ^(talk) 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I had hoped that by tagging this for copyvio I could just make it go away quietly, but here we are. Now, I suppose what you say is true in the strict sense. However, since the author of this article (User:OvidiuBrazdau) was (evidently) also the copyright holder of the source material in question, as far as I can tell all he's done is put his original research on a website (OvidiuBrazdau.com), and then copy it here. In my view, copying someone else's original research published elsewhere onto WP doesn't violate WP:OR, but copying your own original research most likely does. WP:OR is largely pointless if it can be obviated by sticking the same content onto Wikinfo or, you know, Crapcyclopedia or whatever. Obviously, if your research appeared in Science or Cell it's a different story, but in a case such as this one I feel comfortable with the position that this contavenes WP:OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and a big trout slap to the article creator for gaming the system~~. yes, its not OR, or copyvio, but it obviously doesnt belong here without significant mention in reliable third party sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every change in the conscious experience can be described in terms of information. ... "Some of us have a larger level of consciousness, described by a higher CQ, that is: they can access plenty of information. Some of us have a lower CQ, and can access less information. And of course, areas where we can access information can differ in different states, but overall, the general CQ is the same. In some moments we are more conscious about our feelings, but less of our thoughts or our own being". Not only original research, a one man theory, but that other thing as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinions, the theory is a brand new one (altough is under development since 2002, but only now it was finalized, and is currently under publication in a ISI Web of Knowledge indexed publication). Yet, one of the goals of Wiki is to be a encyclopedia, and as I now, an encyclopedia can include new theories and researches, which are in the process of development.

As it is well noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built.

So, I propose to leave a note saying this article needs additional information, rather that delete it. Let the house to be builded. I am sure in the next months more references will become available. Is is too soon to search for Consciousness Quotient on Google Scholar. Regarding the reviewing: the first step was done at The Science of Consciousness Conference 2009: the conference had a program committee and only 200 papers from 300 were selected by the committee. See the list of the committee at http://www.asiaconsciousness.org/TSC/committee.html.

Ovidiu Brazdau [21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)]

Delete see WP:GNG. All the references I can find are either not external or are very marginal - conference listings, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of universities with dental informatics departments

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

These departments are not notable themselves. Mootros (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Mootros (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The departments do not have to be notable by themselves; we do not have and would not have articles on them individually. This is an established form of article under a variety of titles. .We need some way of giving information about things that are not notable enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for two reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Second, we don't even have an article on dental informatics (it redirects somewhere else), so how notale can it be? Reyk _YO! 11:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put this back in the article dental informatics, where it belongs. Not even a merge, because I don't see this as a search term or a redirect. If it wasn't in the article, it should be. If this short list was spun out to create a separate page, it shouldn't have been. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree, if we don't actually have a Dental informatics article, then we don't need this list. It works well enough as a component of Health informatics, later to be spun off into a dental article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Polargeo (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT, unmaintainable, WP is not a database. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom techie

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

Aside from being unsourced, this wp:neologism doesn't appear to be real - any usage is just normal usage of techie, this isn't an especially standard or common way of referring to telecom technical experts, as far as I can tell. Note: The article was deprodded anonymously with no comment. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 No context! Mootros (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say there's no context. It's a definition of "telecom techie". ErikHaugen (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Kudpung (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete. The current version is a vacuous dicdef, the article creator's most recent edit is an easy db-web delete. Hairhorn (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that edit might have involved his account being hacked somehow - the same text was placed on his talk and user pages, and is somewhat self-defacing. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. No indication of encyclopedic content or indication that it could become an encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Rothe

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

Racing cyclist who doesn't appear to have competed at the fully professional level, the Olympic Games or World Championships as per WP:ATHLETE or otherwise satisfy the general notability guidelines. Severo^TC 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ATHLETE makes it pretty clear, I think. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of detailled information here but summed together it does not meet the required notability standard for WP:ATHLETE and that is the only attempt at notability for this individual. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Goldberg

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

Contested redirect. The article is a BLP mess because anon editors are pushing an article from the South Florida Gay News outing Arthur Abba Goldberg as a disbarred ex-con, but other editors claim that this guy is Arthur Avrum Goldberg. My rule of thumb is that if basic biographical details are unavailable, it's likely the subject isn't notable. The sourcing here shows this: if the SFGN story is thrown out under BLP, what's left is four WP:PRIMARY sources (one of which may be of Arthur Abba Goldberg), and two passing mentions in conjunction with his work at Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. That's not enough to constitute significant secondary coverage under WP:BIO, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, either. Please note that "Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey" (which is a disputed biographical detail according to the talk page) is a line-level staff attorney position, not a notable political position. THF (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or merge~~. The previous article was effectively deleted (by being redirected, with no attempt to merge information) hastily. Most of the primary sources are in keeping with WP:PRIMARY, as they establish non-controversial, non-interpretive descriptive claims. I will work on updating the primary sources myself over the next few days, as well as adding secondary sources. David L Rattigan (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have added and sourced the most recent allegations and updated other sources. I will keep working on the article, and I expect more content will be added as secondary sources become available. David L Rattigan (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC) I have added sources and updated older sources. The article now references valid primary sources and secondary sources. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If The Advocate is considered a reliable secondary source for a strong allegation, I agree that this meets WP:GNG; but the Advocate article, as best I can tell, is simply reporting the existence of the other article that other editors agreed wasn't sufficient. I honestly don't know the answer: how does Wikipedia handle bootstrapping? If The New York Times repeats a National Enquirer story (we'll put aside for the moment that the Enquirer has been more accurate than the Times in reporting presidential candidate adultery), is that enough to get the National Enquirer story into a BLP?

Comment. I'd have thought yes. If the NYT is considered a reliable source, it's no less reliable if it confirms a claim made by a less reliable source, is it? In any case, the allegation is a minor issue (at the moment). It has been removed, and the article has stood long enough without it; I don't see why it should be the defining issue. David L Rattigan (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Addition of an "alleged conviction" is clearly violative of BLP by a mile. WP does not like any poorly sourced contentious material, and speaking of an "alleged conviction" is about as contentious as one can get. This is, in fact, likely speedily deletable with such charges placed in it. Collect (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that addition alone warrant a delete? Anyone can add an allegation to any article; the allegation is removed, not the article. David L Rattigan (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The SFGN report, as confirmed by the restatement in the Advocate, is a reliable source in reporting that Arthur Abba Goldberg and Arthur Avrum Goldberg are the same person. That means that this long-standing article ties to these results showing more than significant coverage back to the early 70s. Easily clears notability with all of that news coverage. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, there was never any source to support the existence of an Arthur "Avrum" Goldberg. The only mention of it is in the JONAH article, which was edited by someone connected to JONAH after the fraud story broke. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stunning this was redirected just as the links to his ex-gay and fraud histories were connected. Seem like he founded numerous special groups under various names for social and business purposes. Full view news articles going back thirty years are available. Also for those peering down the rabbit hole ... I just saw "Matthews & Wright executive Arthur Abba Goldberg (known in banking circles as "Abba Dabba Do" and "Abba Cadabra" for his flashy ways of bond financing." Plenty of sourcing and notability now shown to span decades. -- Banjeboi 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did think it extremely suspicious at first that it was redirected just as the story broke, but after analyzing the situation, the redirect was only indirectly related. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. None of the above excludes the possibility that there is a mistaken identity, but this google search shows that Arthur Abba Goldberg has the biographical details of the JONAH co-founder, which now moves it beyond reasonable doubt for me. THF (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran across this doing BLP patrol at NARTH, but agree that since The Advocate picked up this connection, he's notable. Like THF, I don't see a reasonable doubt that they Arthur Goldbergs are identical; the earlier edit to the JONAH article looks like a whitewash to me based on that editor's behavior. Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all of the above. It seems that beyond a reasonable doubt they are the same person. There is a LOT out there (including some fairly lengthy criminal records) on Arthur Abba Goldberg. Lou2u (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This man is notable both for the size of the fraud committed but also for his anti-gay activism. Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EX-GAY WATCH has gotten confirmation from NARTH that the "Arthur A Goldberg" that is part of their board is indeed "Arthur Abba Goldberg". http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2010/02/narth-official-confirms-arthur-abba-goldberg-identity/ Lou2u (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't someone closed this? I withdrew the nomination two days ago in response to new evidence. THF (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow can't apply if there remains delete votes. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well SNOW could apply, but speedy close cannot. Collect's objection has as been unsupported by any other editor, however, so I'd say it's a reasonable SNOW candidate: discussion has been open, a nearly-unanimous consensus has been reached, and discussion is not ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Snow then <g>. as the material is now rewritten and appears now to be sourced. Collect (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of revival clubs

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

The same mixture of Original research and Point-of-View inclusionism that we had at List of pheonix clubs whose AFD debate was curtailed by the author requesting deletion. Could only be justified if each entry had an unambiguous referenced source for the founder of the club saying "We've started this club because..." dramatic (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Lacks any context Mootros (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was done in the style of many other lists which don't have sources except by going onto it's page which is the one I'd go by. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't use a Wikipedia article as a source to say that a club is a "revival club". -- Big Dom 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, many other lists do. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other lists do is not an excuse for this one to, all articles and lists should be referenced to reliable sources. -- Big Dom 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although I think it needs a better title. I don't think "revival club" is a commonly-used term or even one that many people will grasp the concept of...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up concept and title with no indications of notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you oppose to this page being renamed? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see what different it would make - there's no notability here Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in its current format. There could perhaps be an article under this, or a similar title, but this current version is not required to start that so there is no advantage to saving it. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest a better title? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some evidence (references) first of all that these organisations are known as 'revival clubs'. That's not a phrase that I'm aware of and is unexplained in the article ("revival club" sport for example, gives only 8910 results on google. The term 'phoenix club' appears to be slightly more common and thus better (and see here) the point is that the term revival club is both a. unexplained in the article and b. made up by its creator!. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is patently ridiculous to call the Queensland Fury soccer club a "revival" of a team in a neighbouring country. It was clear that the NZ Knights were likely to lose their franchise, so a club was proposed to bid for the vacant slot. That bid was unsuccessful, and the Fury entered the competition later when the number of teams were expanded. Even if their bid had been successful, it could hardly be called a revival - I don't even think the Wellington Phoenix counts as a revival. dramatic (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - the point being that whilst a list under the presumed ideals of this article might be reasonable (that is, a list of sports clubs formed as replacements for others which have previously collapsed) this current article does not do this as it has an arbitrary title with arbitrary content. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 2 revivals of NZ Knights which it seems that the problem was that caused this deletion request. If not, i'm sure there is a better name for it somewhere that would be mutually understood in all countries. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see that the previous List of pheonix [sic] clubs was deleted and that this is a recreation, in part, of that. I think your split is better than the previous incarnation, and List of protest clubs is just about OK (though why not write an article called 'protest club' instead?) but this list still doesn't work. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present there are no referenced sources to back up either the article title or the lede. An interesting concept for a list though but too much like original research at present for wikipedia. I suggest a userfied article to C of E and a debate at the wikiproject level of whether there should just be a list of association football clubs or a wider list along with a serious attempt to find sources. This may be a notable enough list topic for there to be some sources but my assumption is not sufficient, if there are no sufficient sources then it is not a good topic for a list on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology

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

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

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

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

List of terminologies from a comic series. Not eligible for CSD, but not suitable for inclusion. -Zeus-^u|c 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this page for easy access to visitors as does the section of characters. Also the number of terms is long and the principal article kept to much space.Wilfriback (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC) — Wilfriback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would question whether a terminology section is really needed. Most of the terms are not required to understand the article or the work, are mostly trivia, and the terms that may require explanation can be covered with a quick description when they are first used per WP:JARGON. —Farix (t | c) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you watched some forums or blogs, you are going to notice that many people didn't understood at all the exposition in the series and complains about it.Wilfriback (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia job to explain fictional terminology beyond what is need for a reader, who may be unfamiliar with the work, to understand the article about the work of fiction. —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the reason why a article like "terminology" here or in the main page shouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lero (talk • contribs) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with wilfriback, to aru majutsu no index must have its own page of terminology, the series has too key words and the page will very helpful for many people who doesn't have the enough knowledge of the novels. Second, T.A.M.N.I is a light novel, not a comic series. Pipe-G (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)— Pipe-G (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why must Index have to have its own terminology page? You stated that there are only two key terms, but don't say which two terms, out of the 27 terms on the page, are important or why they cannot be quickly described in the main article while. —Farix (t | c) 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Pipe-G tried to say "too many key words" not "two key words". —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lero (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 February 18 2010 (UTC)

Keep but rename to List of Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology: This is similar to List of Dune terminology, List of My-HiME terminology, and other term and terminology lists. --Sxerks (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other articles like it exists for other series is not a valid reason to keep this article. (WP:OSE) What is at matter is if it violates WP:NOT, specifically the sections that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NOTPLOT. —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Merge it back to the original article and reduce some of the cruft or just delete it; either way, there's no reason for this article to stay like this. And there's precedence like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Shakugan no Shana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of D.Gray-man terms, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha terms (2nd nomination). --十八 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have precedence. And major series that span multiple media do have articles just like this. Saying something is cruft, is the same as the WP:Idon'tlikeit argument. Dream Focus 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence is completely valid if established by consensus, which AfDs have. -Zeus-^u|c 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't merge it back and must be deleted all because goes against copyrights. The Lero (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is important for understanding the series. The series contains an ongoing light novel, two ongoing mangas, and two anime, one of which is still ongoing. Dream Focus 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary as a fiction appendix 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Here Does not assert why it should have a spin-out article aside from the main one. You want a spin out article of on that subject bring out evidences that it can hold it own against any article that passed the inclusion guidelines. Unfortunately the evidences are not here. More important is degree Zero of sourcing in this article leaving the door open to "Original Research" and other "Fan made Speculations and Comments". Being informative is insufficient, my local market prices are also informative. By a strict reading of Verifiability policy much of this article can be removed because it's simply unverified. Bottom line, a chunk of unverified text, written in fan oriented tone and style that fail to assert it relevance inside Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terminology should generally be explained when it's used in a plot summary as it is needed to better understand the work. (WP:JARGON) However, this is simply throwing terms onto a wall and seeing what sticks. The series does a good job decent job at explaining it's vocabulary and most of the terms used isn't necessary to know in order to understand the main article. In fact, most of the article is just regurgitating plot that is better left to the episode/manga/light novel summaries. Because of that, this article will have serious issues with verifiability and original research. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also like to note that most of the "terminology", 18 out of the 27, really aren't terms at all, but factions and settings. And some of the remaining terms, such as magic users and power users, the latter used only briefly at the beginning, don't need any explanation at all. That leaves only 7 terms, which can easily be explained elsewhere in the main article. That is why I say a lot of this is just thrown a bunch of things up against a wall hoping that it would stick. —Farix (t | c) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Farix, if this article had the references and more out of universe info in it I would have more of a change of heart - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, everything of importance is already adequately defined in the main article, either in passing or somewhat awkwardly in a definition list (that one hopes will eventually get cleaned up). A brief search does not find any sources suggesting that the terminology of the series, either as a whole or individual entries, is not a topic of discussion, not even on fan forums -- which suggests to me that the topic of this list is not notable in itself. All of which adds up to delete until such time as out-of-universe information, hopefully actual criticism/reviewage, can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "terminology" shouldn't be spread because this is a form of violation against the copyrights of the original media, if you want to share them, websites like the wikia can be used for this purpose. Therefore all information about the original material either anime or novels must be removed and deleted from this site to not go against the rules and copyrights. Finally, if someone want to know about the plot surrounding this series looking at forums or do it directly through the original material because that is not the purpose of this website. So I request that all the terminology from here and the main article to be removed as soon as possible.The Lero (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) — The Lero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What in the ten thousand hells are you babbling about? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Talking about a work does not violate the copyright of the work -- after all, it's not a copy of the work. Otherwise, reviews would be illegal. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally in universe, WP:OR and no attempt to demonstrate why this is notable information by wiki standard. it might make a nice page on a fansite, but it's unlikely to become a suitable wiki article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This series does not only have fictional terminology, its author grabs and applies to the world created a lot of Religious, Scientific and Technical terms. It also uses magic items and tales that are common to other works. An article like this one could help those who want a better insight on them, would be too long to put in the main page and by no means is against the Copyrights.--KilleyV (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC) — KilleyV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've already explained why 90% present of the terms are completely unnecessary, as they are factions within the work and can be explained when that part of the story line is described or are very broad contests, such a magic users and power users. The remaining 3 or so terms can be easily summarized when the terms are first used. That is if the terms are used at all in the other articles on the series. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe most Wikipedia articles are unnecessary, and those that should exist should be trimmed down to have as little information as possible. This article increases the understanding of the series. If you don't like it, then you aren't likely to ever find it anyway, and nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful there DF, that is a borderline accusation of bad faith of those who support the list's deletion. But some editors do believe that Wikipedia should cover the most trivial subjects, even if the subject is not supported by reliable sources much less third-party sources. But I have seen the series, currently following Railgun, and I can state that this terminology list doesn't add anything to the main article. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me, currently at To Aru Kagaku no Railgun Ep 19. --KrebMarkt 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms were took from the japanesse wiki and from the light novels of Toaru Majutsu no Index some of them after the Index season.Wilfriback (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese language Wikipedia is no more authoritative or reliable as the English language Wikipedia. On top of that, the Japanese language Wikipedia has some rather low, if not non-existent, inclusion standards. So its existence there has not relevance here, beyond what they give as sources. —Farix (t | c) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bemused "same" for me, although I only watched To Aru Majutsu no Index and really should pick up Railgun. Too much to do... — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a fansite. Inappropriate and excessive fictional detail, and unncessary "glossary" that is entirely unneeded. Any unique terms to the series can be properly explained, on first use, within teh article itself per WP:JARGON, without the excessive WP:ORness of this list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is no sources and as collectonian said, unnecessary glossary is not needed.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of this is encyclopedic, or can be independently sourced. There is no hope that any of this will ever have any real world context at all. Ridernyc (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superfluous plot information, cruft. Pointless and unnecessary article. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see WP:NOTPLOT, in universe and no evidence of external notability. Terms can be described as and when needed in the individual article's notes section, a skill that keeps articles readable and informative whilst keeping wikipedia encyclopedic (after a fashion). A list is not that useful as an aid to understanding individual articles and so this argument for keep is not a good one. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general feeling is that it is too soon to tell. Default to keep for now; feel free to renominate after some time has passed. NW (Talk) 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jennifer Daugherty

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

Doesn't fall under A7 as it's about an event, not a person. However, it doesn't appear to be WP:N -Zeus-^u|c 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the country's most famous coroners stated that this is one of the worst murders that he has ever seen. This has received national media coverage from The New York Times and CBS News. A murder this horrible is rare and notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Abstain - Toast Chee (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Dlabtot (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
too soon to tell The NYT rep orts it as possibly a precedent for important new legislation about hate crimes on the basis of someone's disability. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are murders every day. Many are reported by the news media, but "WP is not news." Note also that so far no one has been convicted of murder. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - agree with DGG re: "too soon to tell". There *may* be aspects of this case that rise to WP:N, depending on how it is prosecuted and reported. I'd like to revisit in a couple of months. Ronnotel (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that "too soon to tell" means "delete and recreate later if it becomes notable"... also per Onion. -Zeus-^u|c 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Grundle2600 identifies the presence of significant coverage. But "too soon to tell if notable" is the spirit of "WP is not a crystal ball." --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or userfy per DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unusual enough, and plenty of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This subject is receiving international media attention. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ashford (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results. Kevin (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Took

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

failed political candidacy does not mean notability GTD 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Valenciano (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN, target could be Ashford (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results. Ray^Talk 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and optionally redirect as above. Zero coverage in GNews. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. subject fails to meet requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. - Galloglass 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep until General Election, when the article should be removed in a mass cull if he is not elected, but redirect in prefernece to deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashford (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results per RayAYang. There is a general election coming up shortly in the UK and this is a valid search term at present. Could possibly be deleted after the general election as this candidate is almost certainly heading for third place. Polargeo (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashford (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results per RayAYang. THF (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as G4 by Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's Where You Take Me

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

Britney Spears song, fails WP:NSONGS. Allegedly released as a single in the Philippines, which by itself is far from enough to warrant a standalone article. "It is said that it charted at number 3" and the "Discussion" section speak volumes, besides a few core facts there is little verifiable information in this article.

Twice before deleted, close to a CSD G4 recreation, but not quite, I think. Amalthea 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recreation of material that was deleted for very good reason; although there's sources that state that it exists (see [1]), they don't establish any form of notability. SMC (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreated, though the notability issue still remains. --PlatinumFire 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Britney (album), and protect the redirect The content should be deleted for being sourced to unreliable sources. The article should be redirected for being a plausible search term, and the redirect should be prevented to prevent out-of-process recreations (which has occurred three times now). Cunard (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete , redirect to album, and protect. Recreation of deleted material, Only claim of notability is speculative and completely unreferened. No imrovement since the last 2 AFDs. RadioFan (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G4 and SALT, recreation. Will continue to be re-created by slobbering fanboys who just want to get off on how they were OMG TeH FURST!!!1111 to post the info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Dublin Football League

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

Seems to be unnotable small football league, but I don't know what the guidelines are as far as WP:N and WP:RS. -Zeus-^u|c 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An affiliated league of the Leinster Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland. It is the premier schoolboy league in South Dublin, comprising of over 60 teams and 12 age groups with several divisions. Fionnsci (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer: poster above is article creator. -Zeus-^u|c 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its more than a club and going for nearly 40 years.Red Hurley (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Unless we're going to set some absurd precedence that all schoolboy and junior leagues deserve an article on Wikipedia, this one has no place here. Nobody would argue that the Accrington and District Junior Football League should have an article and that league is 51 years old and the strongest junior league in Hyndburn(!). There's no sources to suggest that the league passes the general notability guidelines and the clubs in the league are not eligible for any national senior competition. -- Big Dom 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schoolboy leagues are generally not notable, and there's no indication that this is an exception. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Betia and Dom on this. Schoolboy leagues definately aren't inherintly notable, and age certainly doesn't confer notability. There isn't significant coverage to merrit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Albert

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

I can't find significant coverage for this coach. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This unsourced biography of a living person fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Inadequate assertion of notability. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing worth merging. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big in Japan (format)

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

The format of the show is not notable, the shows themselves are notable. Unreferenced and I can find no sources for this. Ridernyc (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC) a[reply]

Keep if this is a TV show and sources are cited. But rename.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article it's not a TV show. It's the concept that became I Survived a Japanese game show. As far as I can tell there is no show called Big in Japan. 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. If there are sources that talk about the concept as a concept, then we probably should keep it. But if we just have examples of the show type, then the application of a term to describe them is synthesis, and we should delete. Not sure where I fall on this one, but I'll look into it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to I Survived a Japanese Game Show, the title under which the show was broadcast. There is already a significant article there, including description of the Swedish, Norwegian, and Portuguese versions. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's likely this is the working name for the show when it was being deleveloped, but it was broadcast as I Survived a Japanese Game Show. This article has no references, and the show article actually has a format section that is better developed than this article. As such, I don't see any reason to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) not notable (2) not sourced --Bejnar (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Otterman

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

Delete, unreferenced BLP for a nn person. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has few google hits. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article much improved Pohick2 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources at present including links to his university biog and youtube clearly fail WP:BIO by some way. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improper sources can be removed through cleanup and article may be WP:IMPROVED through addition of proper reliable sources toward notability. With respects to nominator User:Carlossuarez46 and User:Polargeo, surmoutable issues are not cause for deletion. The article can be fixed, so let's fix it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked through much of this coverage already before !voting and there are interviews with him about other stuff but then what academic does not get interviewed? I could give you several websites where I have been interviewed including pictures of myself (BBC, NPR etc.) but the coverage is not about me it is about my work and the same goes for Michael Otterman. No notable awards, no indication of passing WP:PROF or WP:Author no significant coverage of him as an individual. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AUTHOR:"3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i.e. Tavis Smiley, BBC, JTV. if the television interviews are about his work, then they confer notability to it and him. your notability is irrelevant. do you really want to argue that televised "book tour" events do not confer notability? Pohick2 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This was just a typical example of lazy article creation. i've cleaned it up and verified the adequate references - all things the original creators/editors could have easily done themselves. The Macmillan and the university websites are perfectly acceptable and sufficient fvor WP:CITE while perhaps the youtube references may not be.It is helpful to be able to distinguish between a blog and a page on an official university web site.--Kudpung (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wrote "biog", short for biography, not "blog" I was trying to say that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. I have worked at several universities and have written my own "biog" for each university I have worked at. Therefore I would say that although his biog is likely to be relatively truthfull any claims within it certainly cannot be used to establish notability without some independent verification. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be the one to appologise fore mistaking the 'i' for an 'l'. And in fact I do see your point about who writes the uni bios.--Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say an 'i' for an 'I'? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." I don't see any secondary sources in the article as it currently stands that count as significant or detailed coverage of Otterman himself. The closest is ReadySteadyBook, which is (1) a blog and (2) a primary source.
University and publisher bio pages are primary sources at best and WP:SPS at worst. WP:BIO says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
I looked for references myself and couldn't find any. Google Books lists no book reviews and Google Scholar doesn't show much in the way of citations (I.e., not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR). His standard bio describes him as "award-winning," but the only source I could find about an award was his CV which says he had "award-winning coverage of the 2003 Mepham High School football hazing scandal" when he was a reporter for Herald Community Newspapers in Lawrence, New York (population 6522). As his bio doesn't include what the award was, and Google says that he didn't even write that much for them, that seems to be a dead end.
Until someone finds secondary sources with significant coverage, this article is deletable, as we've got nothing to base an article on. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what would you call Tavis Smiley? do you require a nytimes book review? (or Sydney Morning Herald added?) Pohick2 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Doesn't that prove notability? Look at the first result. [2] Major newspapers publish his articles, and review his books on tortures. Dream Focus 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. leaning towards keep. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society

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

Contested prod from June 2009, contesting editor asserted notability and promised to expand "ASAP"; no further improvements in 8 months. Article is almost completely empty, and entirely unsourced. A comb through google shows plenty of results from personal blogs (in many cases, blogs of the members themselves), but I can find no "significant coverage of the organization in reliable secondary sources". Organization seems to fail the general notability guideline generally, and WP:CORP specifically.

Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I have found one BBC article that mentions the organization in listing a film award, but I think it's important to note that we're looking for sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the organization, not simply en passant mentions of various nominations and awards; the central question is the demonstration of significance. The BBC article does call the award in question "prestigious"; maybe others with more experience in this genere can offer more insight in finding sources that demonstrate true notability... I claim no expertise in the world of film criticism. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I can verify they exist and have some coverage, see [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do any of those sources pass WP:RS? I have been having trouble finding sources that do. :( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell, Variety passes muster as reliable usually. It is a trade magazine, a shop house for the entertainment business, and it is not exactly known for being NPOV. But it has a professional staff of writers. I'd put in the same category is the New York Post, Fox News, Women's Wear Daily, or Washington Times, but on the liberal Hollywood end of media selections. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that lends some evidence to a claim of notability; though I'm not sure it is enough to sustain the burden of WP:CORP. In this case, ample blogosphere and occasional print coverage of the awards they bestow may be best suited for ignoring the guideline. I'll leave the AFD open for community input. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that we should indeed grant an exception from the primary criteria for notability at WP:ORG in this case, for while this society may not itself have been subject to significant coverage in secondary sources, its awards certainly have been. This is actually supported to an extent by WP:CLUB, which states: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ... The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." The articles in Variety (and similar coverage in the AP etc.) can provide verifiable information about this local organization's activities, and considering "other factors specific" to this particular subject, namely the respected and noted nature of the awards it doles out, notability exists. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Popovitch

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

This is little more than a promotional article for a martial arts school. All the references are owned by the school. Written like a promotion (by a WP:SPA called Popovitch4) and half of the content is listing people who've attained black belt ranking at the school (that's the only part being updated regularly). Asserts notability because of the founder and that they won an amateur championship in 2007. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Zero gnews hits. Regular ghits I reviewed were mostly from the school or non-reliable sources. The few that weren't were mentions. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. The notability of the owner is not what is in dispute. The notability of the article about the team is what is questioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable third person sources to show notability then it should be kept otherwise delete it.

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability as evidenced by lack of reliable sources. Studerby (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources. Couldn't even verify NAGA championship at the NAGA website since the 2007 results didn't come up when I clicked on them. At best this article could be merged into the one on Pablo Popovitch. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Canadian Olympic Winter Moments

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

Officially an article about a television special that aired in 2009, this doesn't really contain any particularly strong evidence as to the actual notability of the special qua special — instead, it seems to simply serve as that classic violation of WP:NOT: reposting another organization's subjective rankings of things without commentary or thought to WP:COPYVIO. Delete unless real sources can be added to demonstrate that the television special itself was notable as a television special. Wikipedia is not The Book of Lists. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really nothing more than a poll made into a TV promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable! Mootros (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted, a viewer poll turned into a one-off minor tv special. Extremely subjective, and judging by the results, a rather incredible bias towards recent events. Reso lute 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable television special. DigitalC (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Just a canvass of opinion of the top moments - therefore, non-notable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hardly notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ReGen magazine

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

An online music magazine, doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements: all the references are from the site itself, apart from a mention by a band they are sponsoring, and I can find no significant secondary coverage. Holly25 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Callard, Madden & Associates

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

Unreferenced since September 2006. A prod was contested in June 2009 by User:ThaddeusB with reason " will properly source article ASAP". No source was given till now. Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We can't wait forever. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being unsourced is NOT a valid reason for deletion. As it so happens, I have been much less active on Wikipedia and am just starting to become active again now - however my activity is not relevant. The notability (or lack there of) is the only valid criteria. A quick Gnews or GBooks search will quickly reveal that the company is notable for their market research work. Further sources can be found by searching for the company's other names: Callard Research and Ativo research --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimbo Wales Dlabtot (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources are available, as they seem to be, it can be sourced. note Jimbo's wording: unless it can be sourced. And read the entire email--none of this is negative information about living people. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "sources are available" wears a little thin when the article has lacked sources for a period approaching 3½ years. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe it passes WP:ORG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, claims are not notable RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of the primary article name and purported alternate company nameplates doesn't reveal any articles in any reliable sources. It doesn't appear to be a matter of waiting for someone to add references, but rather whether any significant ones exist. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Afzal Haq

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

WP:BLP1E - article is well-cited, but the only evidence of notability is the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting for which he was convicted of murder. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. The only other section in the article, Naveed_Afzal_Haq#Background_and_early_years, does not indicate anything else that would make him notable, which qualifies this article for BLP1E. However, there is a good amount of sourced information in the article, which would be a shame to lose. NW (Talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Agree with NW that there is some good, sourced information in this article worth keeping, but he has no notability independent of the crime he is convicted of committing (WP:PERPETRATOR). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but needs to be ensured that much of the material is properly transferred to the main article. Should even have a section on the bio of the shooter, but without undue weight. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is sufficiently significant to be part of the historical record, and thus escapes BLP 1E DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially if other perpetrators of heinous crimes have their own articles separate from their crimes.Alan (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose a merge/redirect on the talk pages of the two articles first. Bring it back here if that doesn't work. --Elliskev 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Crime is not inherently notable + WP:BIO1E. --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundfjord

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG: Google search yields press releases and rebroadcasts of similar feeds. Notability not asserted. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and delete. Spam article with no context. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this gallery. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Bullet for My Valentine album)

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

unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The article is already gaining coverage in the media, such as Rock Sound where I heard about it. No notability - or even existance - issues. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: If notability is not proven now (which I'm pretty sure it can be), then it will be proved later. This is the third studio album from Bullet for My Valentine, a band with at least some mainstream success. This reminds me when the notability of For Lies I Sire, the most recent studio album of My Dying Bride (as of this post) was discussed before the album was released. The discussion is here if anyone wants to see it. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't think this qualifies as speedy keep. This is an album by a very notable band, and it has a confirmed title and release date. Not only will it receive plenty of coverage by the time it is released, but it has also received some usable coverage already. There's already a paragraph or two, with sources, at Bullet for My Valentine, that cover the upcoming album. Another factor to consider is the fact that the album will be released in about two months, leaving a deletion somewhat in vain when the article will likely be recreated within weeks. The article is full of original research, but a bunch of sources from the band's article can be used here to expand the article a bit until the album's release. Tim meh 03:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tracks and name sourced. The tracklist was leaked, but not on a WP:RS. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept because it is a notable bands upcoming album so if you do delete it you'll have to put it back up anyways.23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieper (talk • contribs)
Keep, plenty of third-party coverage establishing notability. Probably not enough in depth coverage to write a detailed article just yet, but it's okay for articles to start as stubs and expand as info becomes available. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Go to www.bulletformyvalentine.com, it's all over the main page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.26 (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Its got alot of notability as its an upcoming album. 74.207.182.243 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilanti Crossroads Summer Festival

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

Non-notable music festival. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also nominating related articles:[reply]

- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any great notability, especially since "The 2010 Ypsilanti Crossroads Summer Festival is now accepting submissions from Artists who want to perform during this festival". Bit too far away for me to enter... The 'article' appears to be nothing more than a programme list - no info about where or even why. Not speedily deletable under 'context'? Peridon (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main article provides sufficient context to identify the topic, so it's not eligible under WP:CSD#A1. The sub-articles for each year's festival have sufficient context to link them back to the main article, so they're not eligible either. I had originally tried to speedy under WP:CSD#A7 but another editor declined that as the article is not about a "group" but rather about that group's activities. Technicalities! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative patterns

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

non-notable game company. Ridernyc (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added --JessicatCP (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry, but I'm not finding any reliable sources providing any coverage here. The sources that were added don't even mention this company. –MuZemike 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Chowdhury

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO, not there yet. kaeiou (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly little in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks, and not much else to indicate academic notability per WP:PROF. There were a couple of obits after his death but overall not enough specific coverage to pass WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Two obits in major Indian newspapers. that amounts to sufficient coverage. If I believed in the literal invocation of the GNG, it would be a strong keep, not a weak one. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. Pcap ping 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per literal invocation of the GNG. The dozen or so gnews hits, which could be used to fatten up the article a bit, and the two obits make me give the article the benefit of the doubt.John Z (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supported by two weak obituaries, coverage not significant. No awards. --Bejnar (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 Days: A Media Diet

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

Fails the notability standard for films. Only ref is link to film website. Willking1979 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the producer and copyright holder. How do i get this approved? Many people have looked this up and I wanted to add it to wikipedia so that others could resource the movie. —Preceding Joshua Maxwell comment added by Jmaxwell0003 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 February 2010

Delete - Reads like a press release, and there is no coverage about this documentary in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of the film. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-Ethinomics

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded and tagged for CSD on 15 February. CSD was contested and prod endorsed 3 times, but author left a comment on the talk page indicating deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale was "Neologism with no assertion of usage beyond the company where it was coined"

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable neologism. Google shows no signs of independent coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:NEO. Slightly promotional, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined a G11 speedy of this, on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently blatantly promotional to meet the speedy deletion standards. i then undertook a google search, finding no relevant 3rd party sources or indications of notability. I removed the speedy tag, but the the pre-existing prod tag in place, and endorsed the prod. I now endorse deletion for the same reasons. If sources were provided to indicate that this term had significant currency, beyond the company that is using it, i would reconsider. But at the moment this appears to be a newly coined marketing buzzword, with no independent notability. I would add that a "citation" such as "Fletcher & Peters, 1997" is not useful, as it does not indicate the journal or other method of publication, nor the title of the work. This is not sufficient to find the work cited, and thus is not a reliable source at all. Does not meet verifiability, a core policy. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. It is clear from the article that this neologism is part of the internal vocabulary of the company where it was coined, but the creator left no evidence that the term found its way outside the company. A note left on the talk page by the creator (which led to deprodding and to this AfD nomination) makes it clear that the creator's intent is to remedy that situation, something Wikipedia must not be used for, per WP:NEO. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating:
- EthicsforMedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EthicsforMedia: delete. Seems to fail WP:ORG. Google shows no signs of independent coverage by reliable sources [7]. — Rankiri (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I'm really no deletionist, but in this case I don't see how these two articles are of any encyclopedic relevance. Besides the promotional purpose of the articles: the negative Google search reveals that the company must be very new or exceptionally unimportant. If the author could add some useful (and non-advertising) content to generic topics like Journalism ethics and standards or Media ethics, that would be fine, but this we don't need. PanchoS (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. All these appear to be is original research, a non-notable neologism, and a tissue of vague glittering generalities --

This concept characterizes practices in journalism that work to develop trust, credibility, and accountability - values that are the foundation of media ethics.

The EthicsforMedia approach focuses on demonstrating that ethical journalism supports the long-term financial prosperity of media organizations.

that have the strong odor of WP:SPAM. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis, et al. Concur, the articles appear to be promoting a non-notable topic. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yves Klein Blue. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tomlinson (Yves Klein Blue)

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

Article was prodded on 15 February by Smappy (talk · contribs) but the article creator left a note on the talk page and incorrectly contested the prod with a {{hangon}} tag, therefore making deletion not uncontroversial. Prod rationale was "Unreferenced, no reliable sources to demonstrate notability."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yves Klein Blue. -Zeus-^u|c 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yves Klein Blue. I was reverted by the creator when I first attempted that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Kennedy

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

Non-notable stand-up comedian whose claim to fame is losing a reality show. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE; one minor secondary source. THF (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite one minor award, there is not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify per any inclusion policy. Didn't win the show, and doesn't do much else that would make him notable. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative commons day

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Article was {{prod}}'ed for this reason, but the proposed deletion was denied by the author (with no explanation). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Google News. A Google web search shows there was some kind of Creative Commons Day in Hamburg on August 8, 2009, unrelated to the apparent topic of this article. Chuck (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not notable fictitious day. Easy call. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Torregrosa

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

Article creator appears to be spamming references to this article. If evidence of notability is provided, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spanish Wikipedia seems to have no trouble with him [8] and while I don't speak Spanish the sheer volume of works and references speaks to notability. Oh, and I'll rename the article (for the third time) to match the Spanish title. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of those refs appear to be the same site, with different link text. Are there sources to indicate that the prizes he's won are notable? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
tentative Keep The Gold Medal for Merit in Fine Arts is probably sufficient for notability, as shown by the list of people to whom it has been awarded (see Google translate with the usual oddities DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maestro Manuel Lillo won this Gold Medal in 1975 (Banda Munipal de Madrid)http://www.mcu.es/artesEscenicas/CE/Premios/MedallasOroPremiados1975.html. Another evidence of notability is this Madrid Official site (in Spanish) http://www.esmadrid.com/bsmm/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlullo (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G4 - Recreation of a page deleted at AFD. The recreated page is substantially similar to the former American Patriot Party article, and changes made fail to address the rationale under which the article was originally deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Patriot Party (United States)

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

This article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines, in that I see essentially no coverage in newspapers or books of this political group. Also the article appears to be made by a single purpose editor drawing only from the website of the group, and not from third party reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:SPEEDY#G4. Previous AfD was for American Patriot Party, but RichardTaylorAPP added the (United States) suffix to avoid the salt. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established. If this page is "sufficiently identical" to the previously deleted page, then it would meet criterion G4 for speedy deletion. --darolew (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the previously deleted page. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the old deleted version looks "sufficiently identical", and therefore it appears to be OK for G4 Speedy Deletion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources for notability Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per G4, was created as American Patriot Party once. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ner'zhul

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character with little coverage outside fan wikis and forums. Article is written in-universe. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sourceless in-universe fancruft. This is possibly speediable as a recreation of deleted material given the way the previous AfD turned out. Can someone with the Admin superpowers check this? Reyk _YO! 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It appears to have been deleted in a previous afd. Eeekster (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation iff it is done so in accordance with WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research. Pcap ping 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Complete and utter original research and personal drabble. Wikipedia is not a creative writing contest. –MuZemike 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unverifiable JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Njaro

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

Unable to verify. I have said many times that all villages are notable, but that refers to verifiable villages. The only references that I can find to Njaro are to the mountain Kilimanjaro written with a hyphen or as two words. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even on fallingrain.com, nor on Google maps. The article was created by an unregistered user back in 2005, so no way of knowing the background. If proof can be shown that there is a village, then I agree, a Wikipedia article would be most welcome. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find it in any of the various foreign names servers, so unless someone comes up with evidence of this place existing, it's unverifiable and thus deleteable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Goodlad

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO; PROD removed without comment in the past. Article has generated a complaint to OTRS (OTRS users can read it at Ticket:2009100210029967). Stifle (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has written numerous books that are cited by peers meeting notability standards of WP:Author. See GScholar hits. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Gscholar cites are not sufficient for WP:PROF IMO, worldcat holdings are a little on the sparse side for WP:AUTHOR - his most popular book, British foreign and imperial policy, 1865-1919 is held in about 85 libraries or so. Ray^Talk 18:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What was the OTRS complaint about? If the author wants delete then I support. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability per WP:PROF and the only article space link is from a dab page. No loss of context for other articles. It's also unsourced. Pcap ping 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is sourced. Look at GS, GB, GN. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It may be sourceable, but it surely isn't sourced beyond the self-verifying ISBNs for the books he has written. Pcap ping 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm searching for the wrong name, but neither "GD Goodlad" nor "Graham Goodlad" return much citations. The same goes for google scholar. Pcap ping 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions here: (a) Is the article sourced? (b) Do these sources confer notability? The answer to (a) is Yes, by the GS and GB hits. The answer to (b) is to be determined by this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Huh? Like I said above, I don't see much in the way of citations for his books. Perhaps I'm searching wrong. Can you post the citation counts you get for his books? Pcap ping 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, goog news has articles written by him for History Review, e.g. [9]. Did you find anything about him? Pcap ping 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to borderline notability. I cannot comment on the OTRS complaint since I have no idea what it entails, but if it involved a request for a takedown of this article then make it a Supreme delete. JBsupreme (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. False ISBN, said to have been published 10 Jan but no trace on Google Books or Amazon => WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Auntie Pearl

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

Hoax. No indications that this book actually exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 (hoax). so tagged. The ISBN and OCLC turn up "My Sister Jodie", which is stated by this article to be this books predecessor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - the ISBN for the aforementioned book is 0385610124. Still, no ISBN turn ups for that book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to List of Left Behind Characters. I'll redirect, which will leave history there for whoever wants to merge pertinent material. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marilena Carpathia

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

Non-notable character from the Left Behind books. Ridernyc (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten, merge and redirect to List of Left Behind Characters. (Note: an AFD is not necessary for a merge/redirect.) Chuck (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Left Behind Characters.Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Left Behind Characters. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar Tiberias

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

Non-notable character from the Left Behind Books Ridernyc (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Left Behind Characters. Chuck (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Left Behind Characters.Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Korczowski

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

Prod declined. Did not want to speedy. This article does not indicate sufficiently why the individual is notable. It is also currently unreferenced Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though tragic, other than being a Polish victim of the Nazis (unreferenced and there were millions of similar victims) no authoritative third party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability. I couldn't find any books or magazine/newspaper/journal articles indicating why this deserves an entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original author is Bogdan Korczowski, an artist living in Paris, grandson of WK, who is described as a political prisoner. He might be in a position to provide more information, but hasn't done here or at his website. Opbeith (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Out of the millions of tragedies that came from the war, there's no indication that this was a notable tragedy. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gibney

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio, arguments appear to consist of WP:UPANDCOMING reasoning. TN X Man 15:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable YouTube "star" who has no coverage in reliable sources. Actually, pretty much no coverage whatsoever, as "patrick gibney" youtube returns only 59 hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchok Kogan

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

Contested prod. Unsourced BLP on a Russian rabbi. No significant independent coverage found. Michig (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the definitions. There are plenty of significant biographical reports in media and academic studies clearly associated with Judaism and Zionism and thus not quite independent. The 1999 and 2006 assaults at his synagogue were covered in mainstream media (BBC, The Guardian, TASS) but, taken alone, they are BLP1E; there are also articles were he appears prominently just as a rabbi and a talking head, not "asserting notability" (The Independent). Not sure where Radio Liberty fall in this dichotomy (they featured K. as the "man of the week" [10]). NVO (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any independent coverage of Kogan would certainly make a difference - the reports of attacks on his synagogue don't make a difference in my view, and neither does the odd quote in news articles. I'm not sure Radio Liberty can be considered a reliable source, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.--Michig (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at all the sources mentioned above, and those given in the article. Most of these sources don't even begin to be suitable. Several of the sources mentioned above make only passing mention of Kogan. The only "reference" in the article is described as an "autobiography". (In fact it is nothing of the sort, but just the main web page of the synagogue. I strongly suspect that this is a mistake: the synagogue's web site does also contain an autobiography of Kogan, so I shall replace the existing link with one to that autobiography.) The Radio Liberty piece is a little better, but (1) it is not really substantial and (2) it is not clear to me that this is truly independent, as the Radio service is using Kogan to promote a particular view. The article gives a link to a page on the website of the Federation of Jewish Communities of CIS, but this is a promotional site for an organisation Kogan is a member of, so I don't see it as an independent source. That leaves us with the article from The Independent, which seems to me to be the only source good enough to be seriously considered under Wikipedia's criteria. However, it is essentially an article about the Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue. Certainly Kogan features prominently in that article, but only because of his association with the synagogue, rather than because of noteworthiness in his own right. If we had several sources of this standard it might be reasonable to ask whether several pieces of second-hand notability of this kind added up tot notability for Kogan himself. I am not sure what the answer to that question would be, but I am quite sure that one such example is nowhere near enough for Wikipedia's notability requirement. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I too have looked at what I could see in English and Russian. The Synagogue is I think clearly notable as a historic establishment, one of Moscow's first, and I think the 2nd largest. I'm not sure he is quite as notable, and I suppose this could be redirected and altered into an article about the synagogue. I see JBW has the same idea. But I think this can hold on its own. Radio Liberty is of course a political source, but we use such sources. Very little in this area is likely to be truly independent.. I have yet to see a non-politically oriented source about Russia. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DGG about political sources, and obviously the fact that a source is political does not by any means exclude it. However, when there are other reasons for not being satisfied with the quality of sources, the fact that the only reason for a mention in a source is to plug a particular POV does, I think, weaken the value of the source a little more. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. This article has not been substantially changed since it was put up 3 years ago, when Rabbi Kogan was quoted by journalists reporting on an anti-semitic attacker[11]. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spent a few minutes on google. This man is notable because 1) he was persecuted by the KGB for keeping kosher, 2) runs a congragation 3) opened the first kosher food store in Moscow since communism and 4) has survived two well-covered bombings and a stabbing by anti-Semites. There's probably more, news google has a lot of hits, but you do have to use variant spellings and search things like keywords :rabbi kogan moscow without the first name. The sort out the other rabbis kogan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @536 · 11:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In answer to the last post, none of the reasons given address Wikipedia's notability criteria. "He was persecuted by the KGB" scarcely constitutes notability by any criteria, as millions of people were. Similar remarks apply to the fact that he runs a congregation. The facts that he opened the first kosher food store in Moscow since communism and has survived bombings give him some newsworthiness, but is there substantial coverage of him (not just of the bombings, with brief mentions of him) in reliable independent sources? Number of Google hits is no evidence of notability for several reasons, including the fact that they do not discriminate between substantial coverage and brief mentions, between reliable and unreliable sources, or between independent and non-independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15

58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This rabbi gets into the international news not once, not twice, but three times for surviving violent attacks by anti-Semitic fanatics. I pretty much think that anybody struck by lightening three times is notable. The second and third attacks were on a synagogue of which he has been the sole and founding rabbi since it was returned ot the Jews by the government. After the third attack, in which he and his son took down the attacker and turned him over to the police, he is personally awarded a medal for bravery by Vladimir Putin. He also reestablished the availability of kosher meat in Moscow in the post-Communist era. There are multiple articles about his role in establishing the synagogue, and wrestling the anti-Semitic skinheaf to the floor together with his son, and providing kosher food in a place where it was previously not available. Frankly, I fail to understand the basis for your objections. Also, could you show me how to correct the name of the synagogue? I improved that article with some sources, but the name is clunky.

Weak Delete - Pretty marginal. A few of the sources in the article are dupes -- an AP story about the opening of the Moscow store published in multiple papers. The others are principally about the 2006 attack, not about Rabbi Kogan per se. I don't see significant coverage. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article. ( I did not trace the sources). The article does not establish notability. He sounds like a wonderful person, a rabbi and a community leader but I don't see the notability. The Refusnik section does not mention anything notable and from what I remember, the is no automatic notability for being the subject of an attack. The closest I would say could be notability is if there is automatic notability for all recipients of the award Kogan received. (BTW, He could not have received the Badge of Honor as it has not been given since 1988. He probably received the Order of Honor) Given the large number of people who have received this award I don't think there is automatic notability for the award.

One last thought. Should there be automatic notability (or at least a full list) established for all Chabad shlichim? Joe407 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe407: There are 4,000 shluchim out there, including their children. We could put the more notable names in our existing article, Shaliach (Chabad), which is still a stub. Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect as an editorial decision post AFD if that is so desired. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Retard

AfDs for this article:

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

This website has not garnered enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web). A Google News Archive search returns insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The first and fourth source are unrelated to this website. The second and third results are passing mentions.

Analaysis of the sources in the article

In the newest version, three sources are cited:
1. http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/ is a blog. The tone of the blog does not read like that of a reliable source. Here are the first two paragraphs of this source:

“

We’ve all seen interviews with nullos and videos of guys with shards of glass in their anus (I’m not going to bother linking that) – those things are fucking horrible but not really that creative, they’re just sex things. It’s the way God made those people, they’re just doing what comes naturally.

But what about when people just do stuff to wind people up? Stuff that’s just gratuitous, childish and willfully obnoxious. That’s where it’s not just your dick telling you what to do, it’s when you’ve got to think about the best way you can upset people with just your ‘being a dick’ skills alone.

”

A glance at the blog's homepage (http://www.readplatform.com/) confirms that the website is not reliable. Additionally, the author of the blog's list of other articles reveals the quote, "I'm a sham and my life is a shambles." and a link to http://completelyadorable.blogspot.com/. This does not indicate reliability.

2. http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx is a student newspaper which is dubiously reliable. However the depth of this source is not sufficient to establish notability:

“

Possibly the most offensive comic strip in history.

The internet is responsible for pushing the limits of art and free speech. The web has allowed many frustrated comic artists, who could never have previously had their work published, to share with the world. This isn't always such a great thing, with some comics - such as Electric Retard - pushing every possible boundary of taste. We'll let artist Eric tell you the Electric Retard story in his own words... (a list of comic strips)

Why was it banned in Germany? Possibly for the very first strip, which began with this image: (image)

Yes, Electric Retard is evil and evilly funny if you can somehow get over any sense of morality or common decency. It's not all about Nazis - there's family killing, sadistic doctors, cannibalism and much, much more. Test your tolerance by clicking View button below, but be warned - you WILL be offended.

”

I largely agree with Emperor (talk · contribs)'s analysis of this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Readplatform and Homepagedaily (permalink) :

“

HPD might itself be deemed reliable and possibly notable but that piece on their site is really just a passing mention of the webcomic and is not an in-depth piece, you just wouldn't include such an article in a well-rounded and well-sourced article as it adds nothing. The fact that it is and is one of the few third party links is a cause for concern. The other articles are longer and more in-depth so could be of some use. It'd be worth checking out the writers to see if they have done things elsewhere which would help with the RS assessment.

”

3. http://wikibin.org/articles/electric-retard.html – Wikibin is not a reliable source.

These sources do not establish notability. When news organizations with a reputation of fact-checking write articles about this web comic / shock site, the article can be restored. Cunard (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above analysis of the "sources". Besides, just plain doesn't pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excellent research prior to nomination. This can not be sourced well enough because WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the multiple sources being "required" was just added to GNG and it states "generally required," not just "required."--Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent analysis of the so-called "sources". Reyk _YO! 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard's excellent analysis. Thorough as always. Tim Song (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Muslim Massacre waiting for Eric 'Sigvatr' Vaughn to be created. There's some coverage of this comic, but reliable sources like heise.de only mention it in the context of other creations of Sigvatr, like his CSKO web site [12]. Other (shock) creations of this guy get more coverage, the MM game being the most notable one [13]. Pcap ping 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable proposal and I support such a merge as long as the unreliable sources http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/ and http://wikibin.org/articles/electric-retard.html are not used. I have completed the merge of Electric Retard to Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide#Electric Retard using http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx, the sole reliable source. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @193 · 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a mess-there's a section already at Big Brother 2009 (UK) about the cast and everything else here is trivia and indiscriminate info. I know that most BBs have HMS articles but that doesn't make it any better/worse. Chandlerchester (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a content fork, spun out to stop the main article from becoming too large, and all the BBUK programs have them. The essential details are referenced, if the user wants to trim out any trivia (outside of the events of the program) then there is nothing to stop them. FWiW when the article was created I suggested a section that gave the details of the housemates to avoid this article but the consensus was for its creation. If the editor can change the housemates section to include all the information in this article and make this article redundant then I would reconsider my vote. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like what Darren said, this keeps the article from being too long. --Dude (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being "a mess" isn't a reason to delete an article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darren and others. No reason to delete this just because it needs a bit of attention. I know from the work I did on the 2008 list that there are usually tons of useful referencee for BB and its housemates, so this could be turned into a great article - all it needs is the unreferenced stuff to be confirmed with third party sources or removed if that's not possible. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as otherwise people will start writing articles about the individual housemates. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @192 · 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Pradhan

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

Restored after proposed deletion. Original nomination was: "Non notable, fails WP:BIO. One newspaper article when she was fourteen, nothing since (some press releases, but those don't count). Article seems to be correct but is not sufficient." That seems to sum it up. Tikiwont (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prod nominator. She may become notable, just like many other 20 year olds, but she isn't there yet. Fram (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet the entertainer criteria or WP:N really. I did manage to find one source which I've added to the article but I can't find anything else. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable. No significant coverage of her. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @192 · 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DO IT Campaign

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

This seems to be one individual's campaign; Google shows very few links to the main website for this campaign, and I couldn't find anything looking like reliable sources for it (and the article contains no sources at all.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Also, the "sources" are downright nonsensical: for example, they cite the main page of walmart.com to prove... um, what, exactly? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. If this campaign is reported on by the news media, etc. then WP should have an article on it, but not before. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I managed to find two sources which go into this campaign in depth and I'm sure I could find more. I've added the two I found to the article. If I find more I'll be changing this from a weak keep to a keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources turned out to be less reliable than I thought. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Lexis/Nexis access; is that Business Wire link something other than a press release from Consolidated Skateboard? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't come up on Lexis as a PR release. I'll post up some of the article so you can judge for yourself. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm....Here's the whole thing. You sure that's not a press release? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a press release. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @191 · 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Andriopoulos

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

vanity/notability I am nominating this article on Evan Andriopoulos because it is in conflict with the rules of Wikipedia Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity as the author User:Brynulf is, in fact, Evan Andriopoulos. It was shown that Brynulf states this on his userpage: "The host of several web blogs including www.thenewenglandcoast.com" If you go to www.thenewenglandcoast.com you will find that the host is Andriopoulos. Also, by doing an internet search I located his e-mail address which uses the same Brynulf moniker. I also feel that there are other problems with this article. It has been listed for clean up since October of 2007 the article was created by the subject in January 0f 2007. His notability also seems to come into question as he is or was a Norweigian hockey player. There are no news articles that I can find at Google that shows he is very notable. So it is a vanity article of a non-notable hockey player in Norway. Plank (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should avoid the term "vanity" when referring to an autobiographical article. Is the Norwegian hockey league fully professional? If so, then he passes WP:ATHLETE. Notability is more important than the question of who wrote the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The subject meets the notability guideline for athletes. The fact that the subject of the article may be its creator is not relevant to the AfD process. That is a misapprehension on the part of the nominator. __meco (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon seeing more thorough examinations of the basis facts I concede that this article does not in fact seems to satify these guidelines. __meco (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have tried and can not find any sources to back the claims in this article. The Norwegian news archive search ATEKST gives no relevant hits. Without sources the article should be deleted per WP:V. Also, the article refers to the club Norwegian club AIK. Is that Aker ishockeyklubb? Rettetast (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=18530 states that Andriopolous played two seasons for a Norwegian 4th division club (Aker Ishockey, yes). That certainly doesn't meet the WikiProject's standard, and it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE either; semi-pro clubs aren't "fully professional." RGTraynor 11:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor. Play(ed) in a semi-pro league. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG or WP:V. Reso lute 14:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass the criteria for athletes or general biographies. Patken4 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete - It is Winter Olympic time in Vancouver! -Pparazorback (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Since it is not against the rules as Meco stated for one to start their own article and since there are other articles about Norwegian hockey players, I believe that there is enough notability for inclusion. I noticed that much of the article has been truncated and I think it should be restored until the conclusion of this discussion. More sources would help prove notability. I did notice while doing a Google search that he must have been notable in Norway because he was given a movie role there by a prominent director. [14] Taking all this into consideration I think his notability is established. Friuli (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the fact that there are other articles on Norwegian ice hockey players have anything to do with this? Other Norwegian ice hockey players have articles because they pass the notability guidelines for athletes. They have played in top professional leagues like the NHL or the Elitserien. Mr. Andriopoulos played in the fourth division of Norwegian hockey, which is semi-professional. And the fact he appeared in a movie and has an IMDB page doesn't mean he's notable either. I know a few people who have an IMDB pages and they aren't notable either. Patken4 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not taking into account that he was not just a player but a coach as well. The fact that he, an American, was given a role in a Norwegian film leads credence that he was notable as a player/coach in Norway. Just like athletes in America who are given cameos in films. The fact that he is not an actor otherwise lends credence that it was his notability as an athlete that he was given the role. This and his other principle activities leads me to believe that he passes the muster of general notability as well as that of an athlete even if it is on a lesser team. Friuli (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not taking that into account, because someone doesn't become notable just because he does several things in his life. Rather than arguing that Andriopoulous is "notable" because he's done some things you think makes him so, I recommend you review the notability criteria at WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and tell us which of the listed criteria for notability you believe he meets, and why. RGTraynor 12:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you yourself did some work on the article RGTraynor. You obviously thought there wasn't a problem, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your time on the article. What's changed? I'm sure that Wikipedia has some articles on college coaches/players and college sports are not even semi-professional. Friuli (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call an AWB search and replace changing Defence to Defense (Which was immediately reverted. btw), Work on the article. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I. And yes, Wikipedia does have some articles on non-notable college players and coaches. When we find them, we file on them at AfD. If you've found any yourself that so far has escaped our notice, we'd be grateful for tipoffs. RGTraynor 19:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches of fourth division Norwegian clubs aren't notable, just as players of fourth division Norwegian clubs aren't notable. In addition, his role in the Norwegian movie is named "Secret Service Agent #1", which doesn't sound like a major role. Looking at WP:ENTERTAINER, which of the three criteria does he meet? He has yet to have a major role, let alone a major role in multiple movies. He doesn't appear to have a large cult following. And there is zero evidence he has made a significant contribution to entertainment. Patken4 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that he would fit the criteria as an actor or for inclusion under an actor's bio, what I am suggesting is that he was notable in the place where he played hockey for a professional film director to give him a role, because he was a known Norwegian hockey player and coach. The whole point is if he wasn't known, he'd never have been given a credited role. Friuli (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are given credited roles in films for reasons other than they are notable. It could be he happens to know the director or one of the actors. It could be he's done other non-credited roles and he fit the need for a "Secret Service Agent #1" and an agency suggested him. And of course, he could have gotten the role out of pure dumb luck; being in the right place at the right time. Random, non-notable people get credited roles in movies all the time. It isn't a noteworthy accomplishment. There is nothing to suggest he got this role because he was famous in Norway. He's a 6-0, 230 lb American who can probably speak Norwegian. It would seem that sort of person would fit the criteria of a "Secret Service Agent #1" in a Norwegian film. Patken4 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friuli, you may be confused about what we mean when we say a subject is "notable" or not. It has nothing to do with whether we think the subject's important. It's whether the subject meets the standard criteria for inclusion stated in several places, most particularly WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and in this case, WP:ATHLETE. In none of these criteria does "being known" a factor. RGTraynor 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news coverage found by Google news gives the person sufficient coverage. And if searched in their native language, even more news results would probably appear. Dream Focus 15:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've found, as WP:N requires, multiple reliable sources explicitly about the subject that describes him in significant detail? Terrific; would you mind providing the links? RGTraynor 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. I only denied the prod because I wasnt sure about his level of norweigan hockey, but now that I looked into it, it does look like its not a professional league. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i do not see what makes him qualify for notability under wp:athlete (professional leagues here???). im leaning towards delete Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as others have said he fails to meet any of the notability criteria. Ridernyc (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With all credit to the wonderful work of the Article Rescue Squadron, the article still doesn't pass WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't play at a professional level, he's got no particular notability through his business efforts, and Google searches are unable to turn up any significant coverage in independent reliable sources other than the one story from The Day cited in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's clear that the book has multiple points that prove the notability, and as such, this is closed as keep. (X! · talk) · @189 · 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Storm

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Aside from writing one book on his near-death experience (which lead him to religion), I'm not seeing any other reason why the subject is notable. I also did not find many additional reliable sources to support notability outside of this one book and one experience. Pinkadelica ^♣ 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Howard Storm's NDE and its after effects are notable for several reasons: (1) his NDE is highly cited in NDE research (I will append the links or references to show this) because of the specific content of the NDE (a hellish experience that changed into a positive one, his dramatic change in personality afterward -- from atheist to minister, and other unusual aspects), and (2) his story has reached "millions" via the Oprah Winfrey Show and other outlets according to the Dayton Daily News:

Dayton Daily News (OH) - January 28, 2006
Former atheist to tell how near-death changed life, Author, missionary says he was delivered from hell
From the Oprah Winfrey Show to the spooky, after-hours radio program Coast to Coast, the Rev. Howard Storm has regaled millions with stories about his close encounter with death.Storm's dance with the devil in 1985 transformed him from an avowed atheist into a man who walks with the Lord. Storm, author of My Descent Into Death: A Second Chance at Life, will share the astonishing events of his near-fatal episode at 6 p.m. Sunday with members and friends of St. Paul United Church...

There are quite a number of additional news stories about him.

In addition, (3) noted fiction author Anne Rice thought so much about his book that she arranged for it to be republished in 2005 by Doubleday (publisher) [15]. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason why Storm's near-death experience is any more notable than anyone else's? There are literally a million other near-death experience stories that have been featured on various talk shows and news shows, why is Storm's more notable than those? Has Storm done anything notable in addition to writing a book about this one experience that would support notability? For instance, has he written any other books of note? Far as I can tell (and the article currently - and has for a very long time - supports this), this is the only event Storm is noted for. If anything, I believe an article about the book only should suffice (provided it passes WP:BK). Pinkadelica ^♣ 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His NDE is the best known and most commonly cited of "distressing" NDEs in the NDE research literature. To quote Nancy Evans Bush, one of the leading researchers on distressing NDEs:[16]

Among contemporary near-death experiences, the best-known of this type is no doubt that of Howard Storm (2000), self-described as an angry, hostile atheist before a harrowing experience that transmogrified into one of affirmation and transcendence. Journal of Near-Death Studies (2002)

What makes it so well-known are the unusual elements of a hellish encounter (which actually is quite rare among NDEs), the apparent injury and pain experienced directly by the NDEr, not just witnessed (which is unique to my knowledge), the dramatic turnaround in the NDE to a positive experience (also not very common) and the dramatic turnaround after recovery -- from an angry atheist to a devout Christian who wept during the hymns in church (unusual for the degree of the shift). Other researchers have pointed to the unusual sensory experiences he had during his initial OBE -- standing on the cold floor (not floating), smelling certain smells, etc. All of those factors combine to make Storm's account unique and notable.

I would argue that it is the person and his unique experience and not simply the book that's notable here. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Anne Rice's personal preferences and Dayton Daily News' routine announcement can be considered indicative of the subject's notability. The same goes for being a one-time guest on the longest-running daytime talk show in the US history. — Rankiri (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His telling his story on Oprah doesn't count for notability? (I used the Dayton article only as documentation that he did appear on Oprah.) Anne Rice is one of the most widely read authors in modern history (per the article on her). It's not her personal preference but the fact that she used her influence to get the book republished by a major book publisher and that arrangement was written up in USA Today among other news outlets. That's not notable? There are about 20 news articles about his telling his story to various groups from 1996 through 2006 [17]. I think that is well above average and over a very long time compared to the usual book tour, and therefore adds to the case for notability. In addition, there is the acknowledged notability of the story itself within the NDE research community (see above). --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's WP:BLP1E, pure and simple. The one event seems to have sources covering it and might be notable at a stretch but this person isn't. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Writing a book has never been regarded as BLP 1e. The book was cited in an academic journal as " the best-known of this type" (NE Bush, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 2000 - ref. and quote already in the article) Though the author's name is common, a sufficiently specific G Scholar search: [18] and a G Books search: [19] show it's discussed in numerous other works also--allowing for duplicates, seems to be at least 50. . Why don';t people look for references instead of guessing? DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GS cites are feeble and best ignored; there is no way the subject will pass WP:Prof. The only hope is WP:Author and GB hits are not too impressive either. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here are some of the instances of citing Storm's experience in the NDE literature. Note that nearly all of these were citing him well before his book was published in 2000.

Nancy E. Bush (2002). Afterward: Making meaning after a frightening near-death experience. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 21(2), 99-133. "Among contemporary near-death experiences, the best-known of this type is no doubt that of Howard Storm (2000), self-described as an angry, hostile atheist before a harrowing experience that transmogrified into one of affirmation and transcendence."
Judith Cressy, The near-death experience: Mysticism or madness, 1994, pp. 19-34. Retells Storm's story based on an earlier tape of his account.
Kenneth Ring and Evelyn Elsaesser Valarino, Lessons from the light, 1998, pp. 291-292, 293. "Howard Storm had been an atheistic art professor before his NDE. Afterward, he became a minister of God. Obviously, something ontologically shattering must have happened to Howard to bring about this conversion, and, if you were to read about his NDE in detail, your curiosity would be fully satisfied. His NDE, however, was extremely complex, having both hellish and heavenly aspects, by turn, and it cannot even be easily summarized, much less told here...."
Craig Lundahl and Harold Widdison, The eternal journey: How near-death experiences illuminate our earthly lives, 1997, pp. 227-228, 261-264. "Probably the most complete description of evil spirits in another world is given in the well-known NDE of Professor Howard Storm from Northern Kentucky University."
P. M. H. Atwater, The big book of near-death experiences, 2007, p. 245. Highlights Storm's NDE as a good example of an outcome that was clearly not wish fulfillment but "what he needed".
Arvin S. Gibson, Glimpses of Eternity: New near-death experiences examined, 1992, pp. 224, 250, 253, 261, 280-1, 298, 301, 306. "One of the most complete descriptions of evil spirits in another world is given by Professor Howard Storm, from Northern Kentucky University."
Arvin S. Gibson, Echoes from Eternity: New near-death experiences examined, 1993, pp. 258, 270, 305.
Arvin S. Gibson, Journeys beyond life: True accounts of next-world experiences, 1994, pp. 210-229, 258. Full written account of Storm's NDE, transcribed from a tape of a talk by Storm made prior to 1991.
Arvin S. Gibson, Fingerprints of God: Evidences from near-death studies, scientific research on creation, and Mormon theology, 1999, pp. 101-102, 188-189, 209.
R. G. Mays and S. B. Mays (2008). The phenomenology of the self-conscious mind. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 27(1), 5-45. The authors cite (p. 33) unusual "sensory" aspects of the initial part of Storm's NDE, "He experienced the slickness and coolness of the floor, acutely smelled the odors of the hospital room", etc.

I'm sure there are several other citations of Storm's NDE in the Journal of Near-Death Studies as well. These citations show that Storm's NDE has been important to near-death studies from the time Storm first told it to an audience, well before the publication of his book. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR plain and simple. I don't see how writing a book with handful of citations qualifies him. See David Mertz for comparison. Pcap ping 09:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The basic notability criterion is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In the case of Howard Storm:

His experience and his life after the experience (the "aftereffects") have been cited in at least 10 separate scholarly works on NDEs, 7 of which were published before his book was published in 2000. In their analyses, aspects of his experience are cited more than once (the different page numbers in the different references). By this count there are at least 23 times individual citations. There are probably several more such references in the literature but the ones I have listed in the article are the ones I could find without too much digging.
Of the 10 citations, two sources (both from 1994) were a complete re-telling of his experience, 6 years before his book was published. It's inconceivable that two scholarly authors (Cressy and Gibson) would provide a complete account of Storm's experience in their own work if they did not think it was notable. Subsequently, these two full accounts of his story were cited by other authors when referring to Storm's experience, until Storm's book was published.
In two of the citations (Bush and Lundahl/Widdison), his experience is described as the "the best-known of this type [of NDE]" and "the most complete description of evil spirits in another world". Both of these citations explicitly indicate recognized notability.
He has appeared on several nationally broadcast media: NBC's Today Show, The Oprah Winfrey Show, 48 Hours, Discovery Channel and Coast to Coast AM. Of these five cases, three (Oprah, 48 Hours, Discovery) occurred before his book was published.
Noted author Anne Rice felt very strongly about Storm's book, calling his story "absolutely incredible". She helped arrange for the book to be acquired by Doubleday and re-published as a hardback, saying "I'll do anything to help get his book to the public, because he has something important to give people.".

So we have Storm and his story as the "subject of published secondary source material", independent of Storm in 10 scholarly works, on 5 nationally broadcast shows and cited in print by a noted author. Of these 16 sources, 10 occurred before Storm's book was published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per refs in article and here, satisfies GNG. Well known NDE, apparently best known of type.John Z (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article 74(Constitution of India)

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

NOTE - This page has been moved to Article 74 (Constitution of India).

I see no other page existing that is about a specific article of the Indian constitution (see Constitution of India). It is split up into pages by "parts" (see infobox). If this page does stay, it should be moved to add that space in and redirected to whichever currently redlink page article 74 would fall under. -Zeus-^u|c 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - There's no reason in theory or practice a single article of a constitution can't have its own page (as here or here). The requirement, as in all things, is that of the general notability guidelines - significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Given that this is the constitution of one of the world's most heavily populated countries, and that the process for changing the constitution is far from trivial, yet an amendment was passed specifically to change this article, there are without doubt an incredible number of foreign-language sources establishing notability. Difficulty in English-speakers finding them is not a reason to delete an article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the number of american constitution pages, however I wrote that off to the fact that this in an english language wiki. But your reasoning is sound. I'm not even really advocating for deletion, just trying to find out what proper protocol is. -Zeus-^u|c 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs appropriate sourcing, a lot of work, and should probably be renamed (if only to stick a space before the bracket), but deletion isn't the appropriate forum for making those changes. If you're looking to improve it yourself (and why not?), the American Constitution articles are probably a good template. Alternatively I'll go and tag it with some appropriate projects in the hope some language, nation and legal experts stop by to help out. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I placed it in for deletion is because at first, I wasn't sure whether it should be kept or not. But seeing that it is, I will ~~rescind deletion by nom~~ let it keep going, as there seems to be some interesting discourse. -Zeus-^u|c 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved the page to Article 74 (Constitution of India). - 04:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some articles which form the core of Constitution of India. Articles such as 1, 13, 19, 21, 32, 37, 74, 124, 226, 265, 326, 356, 370 established the very basis for the functioning of state in India. They are part of many controversies and are very frequently referred in the literature. There used to be (prior to 42nd amendment) serious discussions on whether council of ministers has the ultimate say or the president can act on his discretion. I don't know why we should not have articles for such important articles which are part of serious discussions just because there is no precedent. Anyhow, some parts of the constitution of India so big that, single article for a single part will make the article too big to include all relevant information. - Anilmuthineni (talk) 5:36 AM 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note - -Zeus-, I'm of the opinion that you should let this AfD run. I don't have a solid opinion yet, I might lean towards keep, but I don't think that every Article (as in Indian Constitution article) is necessarily appropriate for its own page (much as not every constitutional section article is appropriate; we instead merge them into the next higher hierarchy) and I would like to hear some discussion on it first. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - That's not a fair comparison in this case. The U.S. Constitution has pages for each of its articles (7) and for each of its amendments (27), and some other subsidiary clauses that have a substantial amount of caselaw. But the Indian Constitution is structured quite differently. There are, according to our article on the point, 448 articles. A fairer comparison would be whether or not we have an article about each section of the U.S. constitution. We don't. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we only have articles on the notable sections. As is the case here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If someone wants to write a page about a particular article of the Constitution of India, I don't see it as distinct from any other national legislation. I sympathize with the concerns that this opens the door to somebody, on an ego trip making 448 useless stubs. However, I think it's far worse to open the door for a bunch of people to debate whether a section of a nation's constitution is "notable enough" for an encyclopedia article, in the same manner that we would debate the notability of a TV episode or a celebrity. Better that we should treat constitutional articles the way we treat professional athletes. The significance of Article 74 should be obvious because of the limits it places upon the powers of the President of India, who is less powerful than the Prime Minister, but still has significant responsibilities. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because Mandsford gave a good explanation of its notability. I do not agree with DustFromWords's approach. There ought to be some specific finding of notability here. Critical legal documents (and significant divisions of them) are inherently notable. Not every division is though. Mandsford gives a good explanation of why this section is notable, which is what's required. Shadowjams (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all it is useless to look at Constitution of India from the perspective of Constitution of United States. US Constitution is much smaller and concise than Indian Constitution. More importantly it is comparatively easy to amend Indian constitution and as you can see there are less than 30 amendments to US constitution in more than 200 years, where as there are more than 100 amendments to Indian Constitution in just 60 years. Considering the present state of affairs and peculiarity of problems to be solved more amendments are going to come, almost every year. With each amendment, there will be many cases in Supreme court, and a wide range of debate on corresponding articles of the constitution. It was argued that it is better to have one Wikipedia article for each part of the constitution. I saw the way they wrote in the case of US constitution. The problem with this approach is that while some parts are very small(such as parts I, IVA, IXVA, XX and XXII having less than or equal to 5 articles), some parts are very big(such as V and VI each of which having more than 85 articles). For parts other than V and VI, it is logical to have a single Wikipedia article for each part since there is considerable homogeneity in the articles they deal with, and their size is also understandable. But for parts V and VI it is completely illogical to put them in single Wikipedia articles just for the sake of using same rule for all parts. It is not just that they are of very large size, many articles that are there in these parts relate to administrative provisions, which are just sitting like that since the adoption of the constitution. There is no need for any kind of discussion on these articles. At the same time there are other articles that are amended many times and are focal point of court cases and issues such as parliamentary sovereignty, basic structure etc. So a single Wikipedia article will look like an artificial collection of discrete articles each having their own long story. I agree that an expert's help is required in this case, but till that time, at least for articles in parts V and VI (like this one which is in part V) I think one must allow separate Wikipedia articles. As I already said, many articles relate to administrative provisions and hence no need to fear of around 400 useless stubs. For those who doubt the significance of this article, it should be noted that in a parliamentary democracy(as in India), the head of the state(president in the case of India) has nominal powers, it is the council of ministers headed by prime minister where the fulcrum of power rests. This article establishes council of ministers, and prior to 42nd amendment, there was ambiguity whether the president can act against the advice of council of ministers. With growing demand to switch to presidential system, I am sure this article is again going to be under fire. Although I am regular visitor of Wikipedia, I am new to editing articles. Any inconvenience caused due to my unfamiliarity with editing is regretted. Anilmuthineni (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. I am scratching my head at the logic of the nominating statement. The nominator sees, "no other page existing that is about a specific article of the Indian constitution". So the proposed solution to fix this lacunae on wikipedia is to delete the article that has been created. Wow! The notability of this article is not in doubt, as can be seen by numerous books and papers on Google books/scholars that discuss it - even though India law is vastly underrepresented on both (because most of these works are published by Indian publishers or GoI press). In particular, Indian public administration: institutions and issues by Ramesh Kumar Arora and Rajni Goyal spends 3 pages discussing just the "aid and advice" phrase in the article's language. Constitutional scholar Durga Das Basu analyzes the article in his Constitutional law of India and other works. The article needs to be expanded to include the analysis, as well as the motivation and effect of the 42nd and the 44th amendments, but deletion is not at all warranted. Abecedare (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was that there was no precedent for such an article to exist, and that's why I decided to bring it forward for discussion. -Zeus-^u|c 14:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As demonstrated above, this is an important section of the Indian Constitution and a fairly large body of case law exists about this article and its uses.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a case. I am sure there are many others that involved interpretation of this article. Anilmuthineni (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article 74(2) specifically gives immunity to President from courts on critical aid and advise question. This is powerful connection with the cabinet and also highlighted in courts judgments as a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the legislative part of the State to the executive part(Supreme court,Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955). Milan7uf (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, looks like people are OK with Article 74 -- high fives to everyone in the Parliament of India for a job well done. Assuming that a future nominator wants to poll us over whether a particular portion of any nation's constitution is "notable", consider nominating the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law"). I think that the nominator's point may have been that there should be a consistent manner for writing about the Indian Constitution (such as articles about the 24 parts from Part I to Part XXIV), which is a legitimate suggestion. While I'm glad that the article is being improved with additional sourcing, I think it's sad if people are going to start judging parts of a constitution on the basis of "this one's important... but that one isn't". Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this may look like a close debate, the delete opinionators (is that a word?) has far stronger arguments than the keep opinionators, and as such, this is to be deleted. (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consorts of Hispania

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

It has no reliable sources. The term "Consort of Hispania" is completely unknown outside Wikipedia. The listed women were either the wives of Visigothic kings (and can be listed as such beside their husbands at Visigoths if need be) or the consorts of those who claimed the title Imperator Hispaniae (and can be listed at that article). Srnec (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Srnec. This article not only is utterly unsourced but it is one more example of people trying to invent new concepts ans historical "realities", it's total POV and OR. It should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ogre. Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If List of Portuguese consorts and other similar articles qualify for inclusion then this does too, although it should be cleaned up and sourced. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But Portugal actually had queens consort. Hispania never did: the article is fabricating a historical concept. The queens of the Goths were not "consorts of Hispania" and the empresses (how many actually used that title?) neither. The term "consort of Hispania" is barbarous in the context. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hard to see what's the problem in keeping? The institution/category of royal consorts is significant and there is a distinction between Spain as a unified kingdom and Spain as a collection of kingdoms and caliphates (Castilla, Navarra, Aragon, Granada, etc.) Opbeith (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal consorts are not always significant. Should we have articles on all the wives in Solomon's harem? Your distinct Spains have nothing to do with this (and there was no unified Spain during the time of the empresses). All that is true in this list belongs elsewhere (as I noted in my deletion rationale), leaving nothing left for here. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment a list of spouses of rulers of Spain may be relevant, but at the least, the article needs to be retitled. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the ones saying "keep": I believe you are confusing the List of Spanish consorts (that's the one you can parallel with the List of Spanish monarchs or List of heads of state of Spain; List of Portuguese consorts and List of Portuguese monarchs, List of Aragonese consorts and List of Aragonese monarchs; List of Asturian consorts and List of Asturian monarchs; List of Castilian consorts and List of Castilian monarchs; List of Galician monarchs; List of Leonese consorts and List of Leonese monarchs; List of Navarrese consorts and List of Navarrese monarchs) with this invented and non-sourced list of the consorts of Hispania (and using this word in quite different historical meanings! Either as refering to the Visigothic Kingdom or to the non-directely sucessor Imperator totius Hispaniae). I maintain a Strong Delete. The Ogre (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I created this article mainly to show the consorts of the rulers of the Iberian Penisula (Hispania) and the wives of Spanish Emperors. I'm not too strongly opposed to deleting it. But wouldn't it be better to split this up to a List of Gothic queens (including the antiquity, Denmark, and Sweden; the last two were titular), and dropping the Empress of All Spains and relinking them to Imperator totius Hispaniae?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see Empress of Spain and no Gothic queens. I am certain that some of the consorts of the emperors used the title empress, but I cannot recall if the wives of the elected Visigothic monarchs ever bore the title queen. Either way, I don't think we need a separate article for whatever valid information is in the current one. Srnec (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consorts of the Visigothic monarchs should be mentioned, if they are not already, in their respective articles (of the monarchs, that is). Regarding the title Empress of Spain, which one of the consorts of the emperors used the title? I would rather see it as a redirect to Imperator totius Hispaniae and the info placed there. The Ogre (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree on both counts. I am intending to add a section on the title empress/imperatrix to the imperator article. The Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris uses the title of Berengaria of Barcelona, there is one cartulary copy of a charter referring to Queen Urraca as totius hispaniae imperatrix, and I believe Sancha of León was also called empress (as consort). We have to be very careful, however, that we let the scholars interpret the meaning of these sorts of things and do not do it ourselves. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Completely agree! The Ogre (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with Srnec's excluding the Visigothic and Ostrogothic queens. Many accounts refered to them as queens. I know Goiswintha was because beside being a wife of a king, she had a great power in the country at the time. There were more gothic queens then their were Empresses of Spain. All monarchies were elective during the early Middle Age, so does it mean there weren't Frankish queens or Burgundian queens? I believe they deserve their own article. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In his Chronicon John of Biclarum styled Goisuintha "queen" (regina) under the years 579 and 589. The wife of Reccared I subscribed to the canons of the Third Council of Toledo as "I, Baddo, glorious queen" (ego Baddo, gloriosa regina). There are three published studies on the Gothic queens:
        José Orlandis Rovira, "La reina en la monarquía visigoda", Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 27–8 (1957–58): 109–35.
        
        E. García Zueco, "Una aproximación a la figura de la Reina visigoda", Memorana, II (1998).
        
        Amancio Isla Frez, "Reinas de los godos", Hispania 64 (2004).
        
        You should track these down and create an article Queen of the Visigoths or something like that. Explain what it meant to be a queen of the Visigoths and then provide a list of names and dates. This would be far superior to what we have. The empresses can (and will, soon I hope) be included at the article on the imperial title. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Mozaffarizadeh

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

Fairly long term and largely unsourced biographical article about a football referee. From the scant news coverage in English I can see that he is certainly a FIFA international referee who was born in 1974, but there appears little else written about him—beyond the notes that X is the referee for match Y. All I can see that we can source is that he exists, and has a certain job. Although he is listed as having won some refereeing awards there appears far too little written about him in the press to support a biographical article. That said perhaps there is more that is not in English ? Peripitus (Talk) 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, The given references are relevant, some more references had to bo inserted--Rirunmot 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

At present the reference simply confirm that he has refereed some matches - there is no commentary on him - Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a up and coming referee in Iran and is notable because after nearly 20 years he was one of the first Iranian refs to call the Tehran Derby.Nokhodi (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dear Peripitus, He's one of the most important referees in Iran and west Asia. I can find reliable references in Persian Language. Amirreza ^talk 17:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The given sources are relevant, and as his career develops, so will the sources that will state him. His inclusion in the Tehran derby is a strong point in this article. I believe this article has done a good job maintaining somewhat of a focus on that topic. Kasperone ^talk 13:53 21 Februaury 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @185 · 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Ard Abbey

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

No idea what the regulations are for abbies, but this seems completely !WP:N. -Zeus-^u|c 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spammy, doesn't indicate any notability whatsoever. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Religious buildings/organisations aren't inherently notable and the article makes no claim sufficient to defeat WP:MILL or a found a claim of notability per WP:N. Good faith Google searches turn up no relevant hits whatsoever. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagreed with this being CSD, but I admit that AfD 'delete' is reasonable - having tried to source it, and failing to do so. I hoped their might be sources for the building, but I agree that presently there is no content to support a claim of notability. Smappy (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not spammy to me, but distinctly lacking in indications of notability. 0 ghits outside the Wikipedia area. I am intrigued by the idea of Celtic Buddhism, but not enough to dig further. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to clean it up a bit so it was no so much of a mess. Then I tried various searches, including Bing. I literally found nothing except this stub and their website. Fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete After reading, this it is clear it is either a hoax or an entirely unsourced slanderous WP:BLP violation, I have deleted it as vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Owens

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

Contested prod. Convicted murderer. According to the prodder, this person is fictional. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @185 · 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Han Moo Do

AfDs for this article:

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

This was a no consensus last year. Fails WP:MANOTE. There is a similar sounding martial art style Han Mu Do, but this one was founded in Finland. They are not the same. Article has one source, a Finnish paper claiming the style is getting more popular. Aside from the single article, the 2 who supported keeping it last time showed sources that verify it exists, but none was significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article neither claims nor sources notability and therefore fails WP:N. However good faith Google searches do turn up a handful of hits; I don't have the necessary expertise in martial arts to determine their reliability or significance. Ultimately however the onus is on editors creating articles to establish their notability and appropriately source the article content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Finnish article looks a bit more extensive and has sources. They could perhaps be added to the article. JIP | Talk 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources on the Finnish site do not appear to be independent, but they do talk about chapters being opened in other countries. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The first link I googled tells me, that the main annual Finnish competition has on average about 400-500 HMD participants all around Finland. As everyone can understand, the number of people who train is much higher. And all that in a small nation of 5 million people. HMD is one of the most important martial arts in Finland. It also has divisions at least in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. I really hate this kind of "I haven't heard about it, therefore it doesn't exists" type of BS. I agree that there isn't many English-language web-resources, but the online translators were invented long ago... --mixer (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope you aren't trying to say that I based this one "I haven't heard about this before" because only someone who hasn't paid attention would say that. You looked at the first link, I found that too....a link for a forum about the art (hardly a reliable third party source) and found a link to a school in a neighboring country. While doing your googling, did you find any reliable third party sources that provided significant coverage showing their notability (and not just claims about numbers)? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um alot of editors don't seem to understand that an article has to have reliable sourcesWP:SOURCES. Plus the article fails because the sources are self published. WP:SELFPUBLISH

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting delete because there is a lack of reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is a concern in an article but it's not a reason of itself to delete the article, especially where it's suspected that sources exist but may not be easily accessed. However where the lack of sources means that the article can't demonstrate notability through significant coverage in reliable independent sources that IS a reason to delete. - 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aubrey de Gray. (X! · talk) · @183 · 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-aging trance

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

Neologism, references are exclusively to articles by De Grey and responses/reviews thereof, no evidence of any currency as a term, or use by other sources Sumbuddi (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Ageing~~Aubrey de Gray. This theory has received coverage from reliable, secondary sources, and should not be deleted simply because it is unique. I suggest including it in a short paragraph in the ~~Ageing~~Aubrey de Gray article. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just discovered the Aubrey de Grey article. This subject should be merged there, too. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing substantial to merge, just one of his idiosyncratic catch-phrases. The many references seem altogether general and not specific to the subject--Yoninah, what part of what references by a third party discusses this specifically?" Not denial of one's aging in general, but the specific use of it within his body of work? DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: You're right, the references on the page are altogether general, but I was clicking on some of the links under "find sources" (above) and found "pro-aging trance" mentioned on CNN and other websites. What I was trying to say above was that it surprises me that this term is not included on Aubrey de Gray's page. If it is not a widely accepted theory, it should at least be mentioned on de Gray's page, since he created it. Yoninah (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aubrey de Gray per Yoninah. mkehrt (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Yoninah. --Green06 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ables

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had this PRODed yesterday. Agree with nomination. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i found some coverage in 5 minutes. Pohick2 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pohick or Merge into one of the bands he played in. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I assume Pohick2's sources are the ones now contained in the article. See WP:RS. None of these sources are "significant" or "non-trivial" and most are far from being "reliable". Mr Ables can be adequately discussed as a one-line mention in the articles on the bands he's played with. Notability is not inherited. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's sourcing is insufficient; Google Web shows no discernible signs of nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources: [20], [21]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @183 · 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovox Snapper

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable cell phone. CTJF83 chat 21:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable, and there is plenty of significant third party coverage abound. [22] [23] [24] JBsupreme (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per JBsupreme. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources exist, someone needs to add them and expand the article RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SecureEasySetup

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [25], [26], [27],[28], [29], and [30]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources located by Joe Chill seem to establish notability, and a search of Google Books seems to back that up. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the links above a reviews of products using this tech, so not terribly in-depth, but [31], [32], and [33] are almost exclusively about the tech itself. The last link of Joe is also in-depth, but seems just a regurgitated press release by an obscure journalist though. Pcap ping 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aximedia Movie Studio

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

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source given for the article seems to be in Russian. ru.wikipedia.org is currently deciding whether to keep the article on this topic on Russian Wikipedia. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication how how this software is notable in the article, not finding 3rd party sources covering it either RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reggae 110

The result was speedy deleted as previously deleted OR/hoax article

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

Non-notable music style/variation. WP:OR and unreferenced. Prod removed by original author without improvement. 7 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable selection. Is WP:OR It might make sense to WP:salt this page if you look at its' deletion log. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting yet again per WP:SNOW and blocking the user. I'd warned him about these unreferenced OR articles and he went right back and did it again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 09:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
Improvements by editors that I will accept his translations of. Thanks, Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stav

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

Claims to be a Norse martial art. Article has been tagged for no sources since 2007. There are 3 sources used, but they are not 3rd party sources. I can't find anything to show the art passes WP:MANOTE. Can't find any English sources and I don't speak Norwegian, so searching those is complicated by that fact. I have been unable to find significant 3rd party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Every source I find leads me back to the same non-independent sources/people. However, I did find a listing for 3 clubs in the U.S. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added three 3rd party references, all Scandinavian newspapers. --Smörgåsgrill (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't speak any of those languages, can you tell us how in-depth the coverage is and what the sources actually are? Are we looking at a small newspaper from a suburb or the largest daily in the capital? I ask because one looks like a weekend paper and one looks like a sports newspaper. The Folkbladet looks like a regular newspaper to me, but I could be wrong.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure -- would like more information on the foreign language sources so they can be fairly evaluated. JBsupreme (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Svart belte was to my understanding a norwegian martial arts magazine, though their website is down so it's an archived copy of the article. Folkbladet is a local newspaper with a circulation of approximately 7200 copies, informants were two of Ivar's students. Weekendavisen has a circulation of 53500 copies and informant was one of Ivar's students. Depth in all three is about an average introduction. Stav is also supposed to be mentioned in anthropologist Richard Rudgley's book Pagan Resurrection, though I don't have access to it. Have checked Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid and to my knowledge there is no mention of sette stav there, as was earlier in the article. Found two more articles in Danish pagan magazine Valravn with limited circulation: August 2002 and August 2004, the first by the editors and the latter by one of Ivar's students, the same as in Folkbladet. Swedish Fighter Magazine had two articles in #5-2002 and #6-2002, the first written by a person who arranged the first training camp with Ivar in Sweden. As with other anthropological research, obviously the only informants of things peculiar to Stav are Ivar's family and his students, it being nameless family practices and habits (some of them common and some of them less) with martial elements. Problem is that few professional anthropologists except Rudgley (as far as I understand) have bothered. There have been one or two more newspaper articles in Sweden that I've read, but they're not available online any longer, one in Norrköpings Tidningar, same informants as in Folkbladet, and one in pagan magazine Kvaser, the latter by the same author as the first Fighter magazine article. --Smörgåsgrill (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that foreign language sources are acceptable, but it does present a WP:V problem for me. If I can't verify it, I can't really withdraw the nom, especially when the info is coming from the guys students. Articles written by his students, even if published in another media are shaky too. I'd also point out that WP:MANOTE says "Be careful with 'niche' publications; check they are not related to the school teaching it." Also: "A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability." I'm not sure if that is the case here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~While you are a monoglot~~ While you might be a monoglot, not everyone else is, and you still have Google translate if you want to get the big picture out of the articles. I've ordered another book from the library which is supposed to mention Stav at p.280, The Way of the Warrior by Chris Crudelli, though it might take a week before it arrives. And I'd like to repeat that the only way [Apparently needed edit to clarify: for any third party writing on any subject] to learn about Stav and other cultural practices is by interviewing an informant, in this case Ivar Hafskjold ([Edit: what is known as:] Field work). Asking for sources on a particular tradition as for example family folklore not originally originating from an informant from the same family is asking for what doesn't exist, as a requirement to prove that it does. At a stretch, it is a bit like dismissing Tevfik Esenç for being the only informant and Georges Dumézil for writing in french, or dismissing Hatsumi and Tanemura both for being students of the guy in question (Toshitsugu Takamatsu) and for writing in Japanese, as well as dismissing anyone who has interviewed anyone who has ever studied for them. Re. news items, circulation in Scandinavia is per definiton smaller than in the US or India, since we're not exactly an overpopulated anthill. None of the mentioned publications have any connection to Ivar Hafskjold, and as I wrote, several of them are written by a 3rd unaffiliated party. Perhaps the article on Stav should instead be moved from the martial arts category, considering that it's not exclusively a martial art? --Smörgåsgrill (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Edit: --Smörgåsgrill (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was trying to be civil. I guess you gave up on that. Monoglot? Really? Just because I don't speak THAT language doesn't mean I only speak one language. So either you don't know what the word means or you are not able to think in broader terms than your own little world. I'll let you decide which one. Google translation tells me some things, but not others. Getting a book where is mentions Stav? How significant can that be? We know it has at least 280 pages, but since you explain the mention is on a specific page, that indicated 279 ages that don't talk about it. In other words, mention does not equal significant coverage. Your "field work" is called original research here and it's not allowed. Reliable, third party sources (his students aren't uninvolved 3rd parties) are what is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are either intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote, or didn't bother to read it properly. Honestly, it wasn't that ambiguous. All research is originally original. Either you accept the research by a third party such as an unaffiliated author or a journalist, or you don't accept any source at all. If the latter, why ask for third party references to begin with?

I didn't read it properly? You follow it up by saying something is "originally original" (which is a ridiculous redundancy, but it's MY inability to read? It simply doesn't occur to you that you didn't present your thought properly, but want to blame it all on me. Whatever. I'm done discussing it with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative district of Bacoor

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

The article is misleading as the municipality of Bacoor is only referred to as the 2nd district of Cavite, thereby part of the representation of the province of Cavite. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Dasmariñas was able to get its own legislative district by name but it is still within under Cavite's representation (it being considered the 4th district), shouldn't it also be the same for Bacoor & Imus as these are lone districts as well? (You might be thinking that Bacoor & Imus doesn'ty deserve to be considered as "lone districts" as they're municipalities, whereas Dasmariñas is a city and have the right to be considered as such) That just puts Dasmariñas, Imus & Bacoor in equal footing. Reyrefran (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My options are the same with that found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislative district of Imus. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA 9723 (Dasmariñas cityhood) was ratified and took effect only after the approval of RA 9727 (Cavite's apportionment into 7 legislative districts), thus it takes precedence. The former provided for the creation of the Lone District of Dasmariñas City, hence it maybe referred to as such. But to say that Bacoor and Imus are lone districts are simply inaccurate. As per Article VI, Sec. 5, paragraphs (1) & (3)[34], only provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area granted representation. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I had pointed out, RA723 already took precedence. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when one enters Bacoor, a sign in Talaba (just opposite St. Dominic Hospital) declares: "Welcome to the LONE DISTRICT OF BACOOR (2nd District of Cavite)" and said sign is sponsored by the Municipal Government of Bacoor (Mayor Strike Revilla, Vice Mayor Rosette Miranda & council), Bong & Lani Revilla,and (conspicuously) Gibo Teodoro...

So it seems that the Municipal Government of Bacoor calls it the Lone District of Bacoor.

That said, the debate for deletion of the article may be over. Reyrefran (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'd follow what the law says, not what the welcoming arch tells us. –Howard the Duck 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However why did the municipal officials of Bacoor release such tarp? They also know the law...Reyrefran (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians know the law. They're the most frequent law breakers. :P –Howard the Duck 10:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the Caloocan City seal: in reality, the official name is simply "City of Caloocan" but Echiverri used "Makasaysayang Lungsod ng Caloocan". –Howard the Duck 10:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present any legislation which identifies Bacoor/Imus as the lone legislative districts? Because legislation serves as reference? If you can then I'll rescind my opposition to this article. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is/are none. –Howard the Duck 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want Reyrefran to answer it for me. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 22:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. –Howard the Duck 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Scorpion prinz is calling me out on this. I would be more than happy to take a snapshot of the said tarpo in Bacoor to shut your little trap. Reyrefran (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really basing the law from that tarp? –Howard the Duck 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the COMELEC's status on Cavite's districts:

In COMELEC's provincial list of candidates, Cavite's 7 districts are numbered 1-7.\
In COMELEC's municipal list of candidates, Cavite's municipalities don't have the representatives included with their municipal mayor and vice mayoral candidates. Even Dasma doesn't have them. Compare this situation to Cebu City's. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. A tarp won't make a difference, a COMELEC decision or a legislative enactment will convince me. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media references (they already call it the lone district of Bacoor as well, so this is not misleading)

[35]

[36]

[37]

If we are to follow the literal sense as you'd insist, these media outfits should be saying "is running for Congress in the second district of Cavite", following such logic. Reyrefran (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These unfortunately won't cut it. If it were COMELEC that said it, I would be swayed. –Howard the Duck 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No basis for the article. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scorpion prinz. TheCoffee (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I left a long comment at the sister AfD --seav (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this is the equivalent of a UK parliamentary constituency or a US congressional district, which it appears to be. There would be no question of deleting such a British or American district so why should we treat the Philippines any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- this is discussed on the sister AFD. –Howard the Duck 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative district of Imus

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

The article is misleading as the municipality of Imus is only referred to as the 3rd district of Cavite, thereby part of the representation of the province of Cavite. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Dasmariñas was able to get its own legislative district by name but it is still within under Cavite's representation (it being considered the 4th district), shouldn't it also be the same for Bacoor & Imus as these are lone districts as well? (You might be thinking that Bacoor & Imus doesn't deserve to be considered as "lone districts" as they're municipalities, whereas Dasmariñas is a city and have the right to be considered as such) That just puts Dasmariñas, Imus & Bacoor in equal footing. Reyrefran (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the enabling laws. Even before the reapportionment of Cavite, Dasma would have had its own representation already. I dunno how the law reapportioning Cavite was written, but I'd assume the laws named these new districts as "Cavite-1st" to "Cavite-7th", with Cavite-4th being Dasma (even though Cavite would've not been reapportioned, Dasma's district would've been "Cavite"-4th anyway). The districts being composed wholly of municipalities won't have a factor on how they were named. We had Malabon-Navotas, Makati-San Juan and Taguig-Pateros for the longest time. IMHO, the only way to determine how "Legislative district/s of Foo" are to be named is to look it up on their respective enabling laws. I'd even consider Legislative district of San Jose del Monte City and the ill-fated Malolos district as parts of Bulacan's Congressional contingent since both cities are component cities of Bulacan (I did follow this option in Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Luzon, 2010#San Jose del Monte and the identical situation between Antipolo and Rizal).

Ergo, my options are merge and redirect this and Bacoor back to Legislative districts of Cavite if the enabling law states them as such, or keep if the law names them as "Legislative district of Imus" and not as "Cavite's xth legislative district". –Howard the Duck 14:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA 9723 (Dasmariñas cityhood) was ratified and took effect only after the approval of RA 9727 (Cavite's apportionment into 7 legislative districts), thus it takes precedence. The former provided for the creation of the Lone District of Dasmariñas City, hence it maybe referred to as such. But to say that Bacoor and Imus are lone districts are simply inaccurate. As per Article VI, Sec. 5, paragraphs (1) & (3)[38], only provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area granted representation. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no. But we do have a separate district articles for component cities that have districts alone of their own, like San Jose del Monte. –Howard the Duck 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Howard, it's a yes, since RA9723 provided for it. It's just that it took effect just a few months after RA9727 was passed. So since it doesn't compromise its representation after all, hence RA9727 didn't need amendments. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they're still a part of Cavite, isn't it? Unless Dasma became a highly-urbanized city. That's why I've always considered the representative from San Jose del Monte as a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation.

We're talking about legislative districts which has no bearing whether a city is a component/independent or HUC. Don't confuse it with that.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the representative from San Jose del Monte not a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation? –Howard the Duck 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard San Jose del Monte is not part of Bulacan's representation in the House of Representatives, since the creation of the Lone district of SJDM. SJDM just elects Sangguniang Panlalawigan representatives with its former district, but it shouldn't be confused with that, they are apples and oranges.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But SJDM is a component city of Bulacan, isn't it?

My point is we shouldn't be separating legislative districts only because they have it alone for themselves. SJDM is still a part of Bulacan and their representatives are a part of Bulacan's delegation, even though they're not grouped with them. –Howard the Duck 10:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison: It's not like New York's 1st congressional district, which is composed solely of Suffolk Country be separated from New York State's congressional delegation. –Howard the Duck 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd make it appear then that the Lone districts of component cities of provinces are just sub-districts. I tend not to make a comparison between Philippine and US representations, it will make the analogy more complicated when it comes to the representations of independent cities, and they apportion districts in the US differently from us - thats why they're so fond of gerrymandering to gain a party following. In the US, representation is assigned by state and from that level it is then divided. It's a totally different scenario for us, we have our own Constitution which stipulates representation of 1 at least per province and 1 for a city which has attained the population requirement. Our Congress creates these legislative districts regardless these cities are component of a province or not. Hence once these city legislative districts are created, they are considered detached from the provincial representation, should the province's municipalities and cities which haven't attained the population requirement be redistricted, it cannot just re-attach (just in case its excess population could add another district) the Lone district of the city which used to belong under its representation because that would simply compromise the city charter which mostly provides the creation of these city legislative districts. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno where you got subdistricts, and gerrymandering, although gerrymandering is also applied in the current non-system: see the Camarines Sur brouhaha and the ill-fated Malolos City district.

My point is, if a city like SJDM gets its own legislative district, and is "detached" from the grouping of districts from the rest of Bulacan, the SJDM is still a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, in the Philippines, provinces and cities with a population of least 250,000 (and Metro Manila LGUs) are on equal footing, hence they are granted their own representation. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is relevant. SJDM may not be "numbered" as "Bulacan-5th" but in reality it is the 5th district in Bulacan. Same thing here for Dasma, only that it was given its own number. I'm neutral on keeping the Dasma district article but the Imus and Bacoor district articles have to be merged back. –Howard the Duck 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we've stemmed from the main issue. So this article then had to be deleted. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No basis for article. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scorpion prinz. TheCoffee (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless expansion done with verifiable sources to cite notability. --TitanOne (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment. I think no one has discussed the fundamental issue/guideline about when to group "related" legislative districts into one article and when to separate into discrete articles. This guideline, which was unilaterally implemented, but still unspoken, by Scorpion prinz is arbitrary and I personally have no opinion either way.

Notice that I surrounded the word related above in quotes. Legally, legislative districts are independent of each other and whether representatives collude with fellow provincemates on legislation is a completely unrelated issue.

Scorpion prinz, who created and maintained these sets of articles for the Philippines, has decided to simply go with how these legislative districts are legally named according to enabling laws, grouping those articles that have the same name save for the ordinal number (which just so happens to be more or less aligned with provinces). Thus, separate articles were created on even defunct districts simply because the names are different (e.g., Legislative district of Malabon-Navotas-Valenzuela, Legislative districts of Valenzuela City, Legislative district of Malabon City-Navotas City, and I presume Scorpion prinz will be creating two new articles for Malabon and Navotas after the 2010 elections).

The point of the paragraph above is that whether a district has a separate article or not (per Scorpion prinz' guideline) is simply based on the legal name and does not imply relationships to the mother province or not. So, if we were to follow Scorpion Prinz' guideline, then the Bacoor and Imus articles should be deleted/merged back to Cavite based on the legal evidence he presented. This decision does not make the statement on whether the city having its own district is a HUC, or a component city of a province, or if the city's representative is part of province's "delegation", whatever that is. (Unlike in the U.S. where states fight tooth-and-nail to get better representation for their states via the reapportionment scheme, here in the Philippines, modern congressmen are more or less independent and so I think the "province delegation" is a false concept.)

So now we have two questions:

Does Scorpion prinz' unspoken guideline reflect consensus? It seems so since his preference for article organization has been unchallenged until these Imus and Bacoor articles came along.

Regardless on whether Scorpion prinz' guideline has consensus or not, is the current article organization the best way to organize these legislative district topics? It's possible that each district has its own article, but that would make for a lot of redundancy. I guess this second question can be fit for a RFC later apart from this AfD.

Just my more than two centavos. --seav (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion Prinz has done a mighty fine job with these Congressional district articles, and although no one owns articles, I'll weigh his opinions on the matter a little heavier than the others.

However, I would always like to defer these things to how the laws define them; on how the legislative districts are named/divided, plus other related laws such as the HUC/ICC/component cities relationships. With that said, I'd merge these two back to the Cavite legislative district article, keep Dasmarinas where it is (or better yet, move that to Legislative district of Dasmariñas w/o the word "City". Although I've preferred Dasma also merged with Cavite but it's not that big of an issue and I can live with that. Just ditch the word "City". –Howard the Duck 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if this is the equivalent of a UK parliamentary constituency or a US congressional district, which it appears to be. There would be no question of deleting such a British or American district so why should we treat the Philippines any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is supposedly at Legislative districts of Cavite#3rd District, unless we'd create separate articles for each and every district. –Howard the Duck 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what we do for the UK and the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the Philippines' case, they are grouped under provinces (see Legislative district of Abra, Legislative districts of Albay, etc.), when the law/constitution defines them as such. When they are not, they're on their own (see Legislative districts of Antipolo City). The question in this AFD is if these two districts should be like that of Antipolo where they should be separated from Legislative districts of Rizal. Currently, the law (RA 9727) gives Cavite 7 districts, the first and third are composed of only one municipality each. The question is if (in this case) the legally-named "3rd district of Cavite" be named here as the "Legislative district of Imus" and as separate from the Legislative districts of Cavite. –Howard the Duck 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this will be kept, or separate articles would have to created for each and every congressional district, the question still remains, will this be at Cavite's 3rd legislative district or at Legislative district of Imus? If this will be merged back then even if separate articles will be made for each and every congressional district, they'll be a "<place> xth legislative district". –Howard the Duck 03:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Godani

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

Fails WP:BIO. Google doesn't look to return anything of use or third-party. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you try Google News and Google Books? The nomination would be more effective if it explained why, among all those hits, there's nothing to add up to notability. I haven't looked through them and I'm not saying he is notable, but your remark just sounds like, "well, I didn't find anything." There's obviously stuff to be found, so what exactly is the argument for deletion? Glenfarclas (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both of those as well but they didn't seem to show anything that was actually about him, but more just mentioning his name in reference to a work. As for the nom, I was saying that not much shows up that would assert notability, and that which does is not third-party. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Relevant and independant sources must be inserted. --Rirunmot 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [39] has a quote from Dance magazine "This month, in their Chelsea home, the company premieres a work by well-known European choreographer Jacopo Godani." :and see [40], where someone complains in a good source that a major Dance festival features only him, at least a/c Google Translate.--If I can find this in GN Archive, so could the nominator. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google News results linked above find far more than enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:CREATIVE. The fact that the sources are mainly about the subject's work rather than his favourite colour or his inside leg measurement doesn't take away from their validity. For this subject, as for most subjects of biographical articles such as politicians, athletes etc., it's his work that makes him notable rather than other biographical details. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I felt that the reasons for deletion, being more policy-grounded and explicit, outweighed the reasons for retention; I do not feel that the reasons for retention have adequately enough addressed the sourcing concerns. –MuZemike 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Island Snooker Championship

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

Article fails WP:V and WP:RS. No reliable sources as it can be seen there Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to be significant enough in snooker circles to merit national news coverage, as here and here, as well as a double-handful of local-interest hits. Turn it over to Project Snooker (or whatever the relevant project is) and see what they make of it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've left a message on the Project Snooker talk page asking for some expert opinion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment. Thank you. With all the debate proposing deleting unreferenced BLPs simply because of referencing, this procedure, to forward a questionable article to the Project page for comment by experts in the field, is exactly what I have been proposing as a viable solution.Trackinfo (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not unusual for amateur events to get some local press attention through local or regional press outlets, but if we can't independently source the results for the events then we can't meet the Wikipedia criteria for properly documenting the tournament. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I've doe some research on the subject and it certianly seems to be a significant enough event to warrant it's place in Wikipedia. It appears on the BBC website every so often as it does now. Actually I'm quite surprised that it was nominated for deletion, but then again nothing here surprises me these days. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those who say keep. If there are sourced then please add them to the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Armbrust you argued with the wrong points, I must tag this for speedy deletion under the unnotable catagory WP:N not WP:V like I told you on your GAN of Ronnie O'Sullivan it does not matter if it is enough to have WP:V, which is just sources. It must contain some element that makes it NOTABLE, which is a higher standard because it must received significant coverage, and it must have been a notable event. This I am sorry to say is not!BLUE _DOG^TN 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say go and look at this] and [THIS news! This makes you argument unsubstiantiated!BLUE _DOG^TN 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason David Frank. –MuZemike 02:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toso Kune Do

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

Completely unreferenced article about a newly formed martial art style that fails WP:MANOTE. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. 2 hits on Gnews, the only English one is a mention when talking about the founder. Mostly blogs, discussion forums and non-reliable sources among ghits. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jason David Frank - It's got a celebrity creator (the original (American) white Power Ranger), which by itself doesn't satisfy any particular criterion, but does seem to have had the result of sparking a fairly substantial internet discussion about the legitimacy or otherwise of the martial art. Frank's an MMA fighter now (here and here) and if the article's not to be kept it should at least be discussed in detail over at Frank's page. If no one's prepared to do the work to merge it, it should be kept.- DustFormsWords (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge or redirect is fine with me, but the idea of keeping as a default isn't. If Frank is notable, that is one thing. It doesn't make everything he does notable and worthy of a seperate article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Toso Kune Do is already mentioned at Jason David Frank. This is another non-notable art "created" by combining different techniques from other styles. I found no reliable sources and it appears to be taught only at Frank's Rising Sun Karate. Notice that even his studio isn't named after the art. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable "hybrid art". JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jason David Frank, or simply redirect--non-notable but a plausible search term. JJL (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Dick

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

Unreferenced campaign-style bio of an unelected candidate in a city council election who doesn't yet meet WP:POLITICIAN. Though obviously an article about him could potentially be reinstated in the fall if he wins, Wikipedia isn't a place to post campaign brochures for politicians seeking their first notable office. Delete without prejudice against recreation if circumstances change. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. freshacconci talktalk 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the article reads like a campaign bio. Wikipedia is not for promotion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above. Anna Lincoln 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN, which now explicitly recommends against deletion in cases such as these. A proper target would be Toronto municipal election, 2010#Ward 27: Toronto Centre. Ray^Talk 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, just a campaign bio. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as A7 - Band. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This devastated fan

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

I think this has been copies from their website and that they are not a notable band WP tan 1999 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP tan 1999 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that while this was arguably speediable (and another user did, in fact, come along and add speedy tags after this nomination was initiated), I've opted to repair the malformed AFD nomination instead. If somebody else still wants to speedy it, though, I'd have no objection. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically an advertisement for a band that has no notability claimed. Probably a direct copyvio too. JIP | Talk 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{db-band}}. Anna Lincoln 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P. Gururaja Bhat

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

Fails to met WP:BIO, not enough evidence to be called as notable, sorry kaeiou (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)--kaeiou (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several of the links didn't work - and one of the few that did bemoaned the fact that Bhat's work hadn't reached the public. Maybe he deserves to be notable, but he isn't. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The links in the article were poor, but there are other references on the web. The Dr. Paduru Gururaja Bhat Memorial Trust has a decent biography, while this book interacts with Bhat's work.
- Expand the article with the additional info might help to understand. Thanks.--kaeiou (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per above references to biography and bibliography. Various references to role as historian and archeologist of significance to history of Tulu Nadu eg "K.M. Kaveriappa, Vice-Chancellor of Mangalore University, said ... that historian Paduru Gururaja Bhat had laid the foundation for the study of the cultural history of the Tulunadu region." http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/01/stories/2009090159500300.htm In any case this is a stub - there are enough easily findable indications of potential notability, so why can't this be left until someone with the time can research and expand the subject? Deletion on the basis of broken links suggests that creating Wikipedia is going to be a labour of Sysyphus. Opbeith (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep doesn't meet notability under WP:Prof: his work is not widely cited. This article (under a different name) was nominated for deletion 3 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr.P.Gururaja_Bhat). The result at that time was no consensus. There's been plenty of time since then for article expansion, but the only change to the article has been a modification to footnote #1, and the addition of a date of death. I think it's safe to say that nobody is interested in this person. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dr. Paduru Gururaja Bhat Memorial Trust page, put together by his "family and friends," mentions a number of awards, although I do not know how significant they are. It also states "The credit of discovering the Iron Age remains in South Kanara for the first time and bringing to light the earliest Kannada copper plate in Karnataka should go rightly to Dr Bhat," which suggests that credit is generally assigned to someone else. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several sources confirm that the subject has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, per WP:PROF criterion 1, such as [41] ("Gururaja Bhat discovered the first megalithic site consisting of port-hole chambers...subsequently he located Megalithic sites at Bir-Male..."), [42] ("archaeological research, however, in its true sense began some time in the sixth decade of the twentieth century when P. Gururaja Bhat started working for his doctoral thesis...") and [43] ("All workers in this field are greatly indebted to the work of Gururaja Bhat (1975)..."). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone responded to my challenge. I'm changing my vote to "Weak Keep," and placing one of those references in the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should ask the trust for permission to use his photo. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Robertson, Queensland. –MuZemike 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson State Primary School

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

Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there appears to be no significant independent coverage proving notability here. A google search turns up a "school profile" on Queensland Education, the school's official website, and this article and not a whole lot else. I wasn't able to find anything to back up the claims made by Robertsonstate - who has a very obvious conflict of interest and was later blocked indefinitely as a promotion-only role account. 2 says you, says two 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robertson, Queensland, as is usually done with articles about nn primary schools. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Merge per Eastmain. Ray^Talk 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Robertson, Queensland per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - after a complete rewrite (article possibly created by a student), to its home town, county, or state, or local education authority. Primary schools are not de facto notable. --Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reasons for deletion outweigh the sole reason for retention. –MuZemike 01:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhardt Seifert

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

almost WP:ONEVENT. fails WP:BIO. the article name is incorrect. hardly anything in gnews for his correct name [44]. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was a developer that got stonewalled when he intended to develop a corner of property that nobody wanted developed. He went to court. This happens pretty frequently. So why is he notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep apparently his was the test case for the validity of the covenants under Australian law. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and how does that meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; that seems to meet the article's not eligible for speedy deletion, but doesn't establish any notability. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to meet WP:BIO and the uncited claim that he's best known for being involved in legal actions is troublesome from a BLP view. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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