Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 16

< 15 October	17 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Switlo

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

The article currently makes no claim for WP:Notability, nor provides any strong evidence of WikiNotability. CWC 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As well as failing our Notability standards, the article is poorly sourced. (The only reference is a book by the subject. The only off-WP link is to the subject's website, which seems to be no longer maintained.) If someone can produce good sources and evidence of WikiNotability, I'll be happy to keep the article; failing that, I think we should delete it. CWC 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte - This is the most substantial coverage I am able to find. That isn't sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ray. Simply being a lawyer who's written something and run for political office doesn't make you notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Nepal

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

This is a tour guide, it belongs at Wikitravel. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't even enough sourcing to merge with Nepal. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a tour guide / advert, not an article about Nepal. All the external links go to a non-existent domain that looks like a "spam" site. QU ^TalkQu 20:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is about Nepal, except written as a travel guide which Wikipedia is not. None of the material is worth merging as it is all unsourced. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. Koopman

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

Lack of sources, both on Wikipedia and through a Google Books/Scholar search. This journal article mentions a Lieutenant Colonel with the same last name, but it is only a bare mention and I am unsure whether it is even the same person or not. NW (Talk) 23:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For people without JSTOR access, this (poorer-quality) scan is the same page. Killiondude (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the image caption, the woman in the article is "Ine Koopman". The original version of the article also referred to her as a second lieutenant, so it's unlikely they're the same. Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found no sources whatsoever. Furthermore, she was not a recipient of the American Freedom Medal `or if she was, it might have been under her maiden name or some other name.--Kudpung (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence do you base the statement that the subject didn't receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom? I can't find any comprehensive list of recipients, and neither, apparently, can anyone who has edited List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients. If you know of such a source then I would suggest that you use it to update that list, or at least present it on the talk page so that others can use it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN Phil, BURDEN. I would be silly to rely on information in the Wikipedia! I went to the true source - the official US government site 5and not one of the many incomplete private sites that list the same thing). If she ain't on that government site, it's good enough for me and it's good enough for us all. Making false claims to a highly important decoration like that is a serious affair. It's not up to us to prove she didn't have it - it's up to someone else to prove she did.--Kudpung (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about WP:BURDEN, and, because of that, haven't !voted to keep, but your statement that "she was not a recipient of the American Freedom Medal" presents that information as if it was established fact, which overstates your case. If you don't know whether a statement is true or not, please use wording such as "it has not been established that she was a recipient of the American Freedom Medal" rather than imply that you have established that she was not. The official US government site only covers recipients from 1993, so is irrelevant to this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: if a reliable source can be found to establish she is actually a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, then she has sufficient notability. If not, then Delete. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources that could establish that this person won the Medal of Freedom. The burden of evidence is on the editor making the assertion that the subject did win the medal. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified, could even be a hoax. What is the likelihood of a Dutch nurse getting the Medal of Freedom (or any other high American award) for efficient work in a UN hospital? The only category listed is "living people" yet the article describes who she "was"; if still alive she must be well into her 90s. Absolutely nothing can be found about her in a search except this article. Not only is it unverified that she got the Medal of Freedom - it is unverified that she existed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 20 October 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. Notability is clear. The referencing has been significantly improved during this AFD. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Pittel

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

This article has a "multiple issues" tag which has been in place since February, 2010. This biography of a living person contains no sources other than the person's website. It would appear that, although this person might be marginally notable, that there is not sufficient interest in writing a fully sourced biography with sources. At this point, it is not even clear if these sources exist. I would like to suggest that this article be considered for deletion, as it does not yet follow our policies concerning BLP. There are two articles in the "news" section. There is nothing in Google scholar and in free images I don't think that this article can currently be sourced properly. Throw it in the Fire (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - One of the America's leading musical academics - the Professor of saxophone at Texas University no less, and teacher to a great many Phd's who are now also important faculty it leading universities, and to even more musician who have gone o to making jazz chart-topping solo careers. Note that academics at this level are practically de facto notable.-Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)". Qwfp (talk) 19:40, 17 October 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 Ben Mitchell (EastEnders). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 18:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Pascoe

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:ENT as has had no roles in any TV shows, let alone multiple significant roles. Has only just been announced to be joining EastEnders. Anemone Projectors 22:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established according to WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; does not appear to have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; does not appear to have made a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Lacks notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Mitchell (EastEnders). Subject's name is a plausible search term. Location (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) for the same reason that user Location has listed. --5 albert square (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zipp Duncan

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

Fails WP:ATH, never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really like the article on him and the O-line in USA Today plus there's a good amount of other coverage. For an offensive lineman, he's either really widely known or has a good press agent. I'm going with notable here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, never played professionally. Not enough sourcing to establish notability according to the general notability guidelines. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there's a lot of coverage of this person none of it qualifies as significant. Person fails WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a fair amount of non-trivial coverage of Duncan in the mainstream media, and it's not just passing references in game coverage. As noted by Paul McDonald, linemen don't usually get a lot of media attention, but he is an exception. He was picked to play in a national all-star game, served as the captain of an SEC football team, and was a second-team All-SEC player (the SEC is the toughest conference in college football). In addition to the USA Today article referenced above, articles focusing on Zipp Duncan include (1) He's added some Zipp to Cats' line play, Courier - Journal (Louisville, Ky.), Aug 21, 2007; (2) POSITION MOVE PUTS ZIPP IN CAT'S STEP, FORMER TIGHT END DUNCAN GETTING PRAISE AS LINEMAN, Lexington Herald-Leader, August 13, 2007; (3) UK's Duncan left in a media daze, Wildcat lineman thinking about a career in broadcasting, Lexington Herald-Leader, August 3, 2009; (4) E-TOWN'S BATTERING RAM, UK FOOTBALL RECRUIT ZIPP DUNCAN LIKES TO MIX IT UP, Lexington Herald-Leader, March 17, 2005; (5) Another change for offensive lineman: Rising senior Zipp Duncan moves to left tackle, his fourth position at UK, Kentucky Kernel, April 19, 2009; (6) Duncan signs with Eagles, The News Enterprise, April 27, 2010; (7) Duncan, Peters Elected Captains, August 20, 2009, UKAthletics.com; (8) Duncan, Smith in All-Star Game, February 5, 2010, UKAthletics.com; (9) Two Wildcats in All-Star games, February 5, 2010, WKYT. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles you listed above are local news coverage articles. None of the other reasons listed (captain, second-team All-SEC, invited to all-star game) are in any inclusion criteria. I think the Big Ten can be considered "the toughest conference in college football," but this is also purely subjective. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier Journal is not a small-town podunk newspaper covering a local football hero. It's the 48th largest daily newspaper in the United States. Likewise, the Lexington Herald-Leader has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes, is a major metropolitan daily newspaper and the 2nd largest newspaper in Kentucky after the Courier Journal. I appreciate the tendency to discount coverage in a small-town paper, but regional coverage in major daily newspapers can't be discounted. Kentucky has 4.3 million people, and these are the two largest newspapers in the state. According to the List of countries by population, Kentucky's population is equivalent to Ireland and larger than 100 of the world's nations, including New Zealand, Uruguay, Lebanon, Panama, Lithuania and Mongolia. Would we dis-allow a bio on someone from Ireland or New Zealand because the press coverage was predominantly from those countries? Of course not. Sure, we might discount newspaper from small towns, but not extensive coverage in the leading media outlets of a region with a population equivalent to Ireland. Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no mention of geography of the sources used to confer notability in WP:GNG, so subject meets it per Cbl62's research. Strikehold (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miutyun

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

no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newspaper that may have been published for four months is not notable unless it has references to it from other reliable sources. This one doesn't. It's online copy is still under construction and no evidence that more than one copy has ever been published. QU ^TalkQu 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand-new publication, nothing found (at least in English) to establish notability. Its description - "the official newspaper of the Armenian community of Georgia" - is a puzzle. Who or what designated it as the "official" newspaper? Does the Armenian community of Georgia have its own government? Or is this the official newsletter of a non-notable organization called Armenian Community of Georgia? Or is "official" used in an offhand manner not really meaning anything? In any case it is not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 23 October 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 Washington University in St. Louis. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 18:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WUTV 22

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

Closed-circuit college cable station: no distribution outside the campus. No third party sources to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Washington University in St. Louis. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Washington University in St. Louis. Neutralhomer has the right idea. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Washington University in St. Louis. As per nom (ratioale) and Neutralhome (suggestion).--Kudpung (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perguruan Pencak Silat Padjadjaran Nasional

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

This article gives no reason why it is a notable martial art and has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources for this art--only related sites and wiki mirrors. Astudent0 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 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 userfy to User:MVO Rambler/Hardy (hill). Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy (hill)

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

Not sure of what to think of this one. Anyone have the book to identify the sources, or is it a hoax? Talktome^(Intelati) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this amazing. I have quoted the ISBN. It is so obviously not a hoax. Download the book (free) from the Book page on www.thehardys.org. Look through it, it represents months if not years of hard original work (text, lists, maps, appendices, photos, 236pp). Ask the Long Distance Walkers Association. Ask Country Walking magazine's editor, Jonathan Manning. Ask Alan Dawson, compiler of the Marilyns hill list. The book is validly published on the web (ask the British Library). It is also available on DVD (again, ask the British Library - this version has a slightly different ISBN - 978 0 9565533 5 5). What else am I supposed to do!?MVO Rambler (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It's definitely not a hoax. But it is original research, and, MVO Rambler's comments notwithstanding, there is a severe shortage of verifiable references: a search for the isbn throws up nothing meaningful and a search for "Hardys" or even "Hardies" gets bogged down in a morass of references to "(Thomas) Hardy's" or to "hardy souls". I also searched the Country Walking and Ramblers Association sites, without success. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You actually have a point with the comment you made on your old userpage that this type of article is something we have several of already. The only difference I can see is that the Hardy designation seems to be one person's creation and it is not as widely used as those others. But if there are enough sources out there, notability can be established. However, note that it's up to you to produce those sources, not up to those voting delete. —Soap— 01:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And here too.--Talktome^(Intelati) 03:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added to the article to prove the history of the Hardy hill list. A "See Also" has also been added pointing to the hill list's entry in the article "Hill Lists of the British Isles". It is a book formally lodged with the British Library under the ISBN given. The current third edition of the book is available on the internet for downloading (free) published under the ISBN given as per the British Library regulations. Again as per the British Library regulations there is a slightly different ISBN for the version available on a DVD (ISBN 978 0 9565533 5 5). It is accepted as an authority by the Long Distance Walkers Association. The editor of Country Magazine, Jonathan Manning, can vouch for the hill list's authenticity and provenance. Alan Dawson, compiler of the Marilyns hill list can vouch for the hill list's authenticity and provenance (he advised on the 1st edition of the book in the mid-1990s). The article "Hardy (hill)" in its subject matter, authenticity and provenance is an exact parallel to the article "Marilyn (hill)" (and others), which is on Wikipedia. What else can be done to convince people? I do not understand what the problem is. The hill list has been available for 18 years, published for 13 years and on a bona fide subject, has involved years of hard work in its compliation and maintenance and the article thus adheres to all the rules stated when going through the Articles Creation Wizard (in exactly the same way as other articles already accepted on Wikipedia). The book is published on and can be viewed and downloaded (for free) at www.thehardys.org (as allowed by the regulations of the Britiah Library). This site has however not been included as an external link to the article precisely so as not to contravene the rules on promotion, even though it is only a site made available for those interested in the Hardys hill list, exactly as the site(s) cited in the Marilyn (hill) article, already accepted by Wikipedia. The DVD can be sent to anyone who wants to have a look (a complementary copy) but it is the same format as the version on the web site (just a slightly different ISBN, as per British Library regulations, who hold a copy as required). If you want any further concerns or queries addressed I am more than happy to do so. Finally I would like to reiterate that the article complies with all Wikipedia's rules in my view. Again, what else can I do to convince people?MVO Rambler (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do to convince people is to provide evidence that anyone independent of Ian Hardy has published anything about this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - The hill list was featured in Country Walking magazine in the later 1990s, and mentioned therein a few times since then; similarly featured in the Long Distance Walkers Association (LDWA) magazine Strider and also in The Great Outdoors magazine; and in one of the main hill-walking community's publication/discussion groups centred round the Tacit Press. These and other similar references are of course not available to me at the drop of a hat (if I can locate them again at source now anyway) since I didn't realise at the time I would in the future need to provide such detailed evidence of my motives, veracity and standing ( I could provide my "CV"/life profile - that would certainly convince you of my honorable intentions, but you would probably consider it "promotional"!). As I understand the position Country Walking is preparing a feature now on the hill list following the publication of the third edition of the book for inclusion in an upcoming issue, as is the Ramblers magazine Walk, and possibly others. All I want to do is to help the general walker rather than just the hill-climber to get out and enjoy walking - the hill list is unique in doing this, and it's 18 year history is beyond doubt (I could produce many many e-mail addresses of such walkers who have been in touch with me down the years on the Hardy hill list - but of course they are private and I would not do so). I have no interest in making anything out of this at all. I am frustrated, exasperated, disappointed and saddened by all this. I agree entirely with the need to "protect" the Wikipedia concept (which I thought was welcoming, open and "inclusional"), but it certainly makes things difficult for the innocent newcomer being doubted by everybody! I will contact Country Walking , I will contact Alan Dawson (the Marilyns and the Hewitts), et al, and I have already e-mailed the LDWA. Thank you (genuinely) however for people's comments and advice on this page and elsewhere, I have no doubt as to their honorable intentions! - sigh! MVO Rambler (the 4 tildas didn't throw up my username)81.108.78.85 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ without prejudice to recreation if sources are shown. Unfortunately, you are learning the hard way the sort of reception you get when you attempt to write articles about yourself or something you're associated with. Wikipedia is deluged with people thinking it's their right to promote their band/novel/company and regular posters get rather tired of this. Nevertheless, it's whether the subject of the article is notable that counts, not the person who wrote it. The one thing that might count in its favour are the articles in other magazines. If you can show us these articles (either by showing internet versions of the articles or scanning the pages), then we can check again. (By the way, if you want the four tidas to sign your username, you'll need to log back in.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris - but I reiterate I am not promoting anything, as I have explained and demonstrated more than adequately in my view. It just wouldn't occur to me to do such a thing. This is a hill list, pure and simple, exactly the same as many other hill lists already accepted for Wikepedia articles. It has been in existence for 18 years, published for 13 years. I agree absolutely with your comments about promotional material, but this is clearly not such material! I am irrelevant, but as I understand the rules, the article is notable. My "reception" was not at all what I expected. The first comment on my article was "is this a hoax", the second virtually accused me of inventing an ISBN - when I proved otherwise, did I get any apology? - no - and on it went ... how am I expected to feel after such an onslaught! As someone whose career was spent in the public service, much at a reasonably senior level, I am very surprised, indeed shocked, at the negative way newcomers to Wikipedia are treated! However, c'est la vie! I still hope common sense will prevail and the article will be accepted. If not, I will keep trying! - watch this space.81.108.78.85 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with people posting articles about things they're involved in is that the vast majority of them have a blatant agenda to use Wikipedia to promote it, usually in the hope of gaining money or fame. As such, the rest of Wikipedia community has grown trigger-happy and tends to delete first, ask questions later. Contributions from anyone are welcome, but I do have to warn you that the vast majority of Wikipedians started off writing about things they're not personally involved in which is why there is a lot of natural suspicion of people who write about themselves. Wikipedia has a policy on conflict of interest and writing about yourself - even if you are trying to be impartial - is allowed but highly discrouaged.

I will, however, stick with my suggestion I made before. The General Notability Guideline is that notability is determined by other people writing about the subject. In your case, it seems like the best chance of establishing notability is with the magazine articles you mentioned. If you can show us these articles one way or another, we can then make a decision on whether this passes notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (although I am not writing about myself, I am writing about a hill list - so if even writing about yourself is as you state allowed ...) - but I suspect that possibly promotional article-weary editors might have forgotten along the way the very long-standing British tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"!MVO Rambler (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MVO Rambler, anyone who writes about their own creation is in a way writing about themself. I looked at another hill list article and it had third-party sources, so I could tell the list had been actually noticed by other people. Undoubtedly that's the case for your list too, but you do need to show that. Chris Neville-Smith is giving you very good advice. You could probably locate archives of the sources you claim, so why not do that? And if the list is really significant, why is not being currently talked about or recommended somewhere that you can link us to? Unfortunately, the new editors who are most likely to find Wikipedia unwelcoming are those who start by writing an article with the expectation that it will stay because they have pure motives for writing it. If you stick around here, edit different articles, nd get to know the community, I think you might form a different view. This article in particular now, I looked for external sources and found none on the internet, nor any reference to print sources. I believe I found it listed on Amazon as a 150-page out-of-print edition with no reviews. We need third-party sources to meet our standards for inclusion, this article does not demonstrate notability established by verifiable reliable sources, so I agree that delete is the correct outcome. When you collect the necessary sources I will help you to re-introduce the article. Franamax (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Chris Neville-Smith and Franamax for restoring (some of!) my faith in the Wikipedia editorial concept, policies and processes. I take the point about the need to quote third-party sources to establish sufficient notability. I also conclude I hope that otherwise the authenticity and history of the Hardy hill list (and my motives!) have now been accepted. I am in the process of gathering such third-party sources (which will no doubt take a little while), and should this instance of the article be deleted I will return in due course with a notable third party referenced version.MVO Rambler (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Userfy to give MVO Rambler a chance to add references. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, changing !vote to Userfy to allow the author time to provide references. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great (and thanks Franamax for other comments - I've responded on your page as I thought the article had been deleted already). Now I've got to find out how to "userfy"!MVO Rambler (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that will be done for you by the administrator who closes this discussion. The article will be renamed to a title on the lines of User:MVO Rambler/Hardy (hill), where it won't be found by search engines but you will still be able to edit it. When you have found sufficient sources it can be renamed back again. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Assuming it happens that way when the discussion is closed, I guess I will get a message saying what it's called and how to get to it - as I have time I'll take the advice to get involved a little more in Wikipedia stuff (winter's coming!).MVO Rambler (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per discussion above, without prejudice to move the article back into the article namespace if it can be appropriate sourced. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:48, 21 October 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Allitt

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

Delete University professors who are published authors are not inherently notable. They still require recognition by substantive coverage in reliable third-party publications. Professor Allitt is at a major university, Emory. He does hold the chair in History endowed by the Cahoon Family. The chair was created in September 2009. ("Minutes - College Faculty Meeting, September 16, 2009") Under the guidelines at Notability (academics) Criteria 5, this chair would make him notable. However, the guidelines are just that, guidelines, and Professor Allitt fails the very basic concept expressed in the Notability guidelines that notability requires "notice" to a significant degree by independent sources. This Wikipedia article has only inside sources like Emory, and a link to an article Prof. Allitt wrote for the Nationa Review. Googling Professor Allitt produces a fair number of hits, but those hits are to press relaeses for his lecture appearences, Amazon.com comments on his books, book and publisher catalog blurbs, torrent download options, references at emory.edu, and an occasional book review. The book reviews I've read so-far don't discuss the professor. The Wikipedia links that point to this article do so as an author, and not for notability. Now if it were true that there were significant or even reasonable coverage of the man in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, with articles, for example, that discussed his role as Director of the Center for Teaching and Curriculum at Emory University, or if he were the recipient of a significant prize in History, such as one of the twenty awarded annually by the American Historical Association, I wouldn't have a problem. But criteria 5, in and by itself without any other support, I find insufficient to meet the need that "notability is not temporary". I would rather discuss criteria 5 in the specific case first, rather than in general (1) to test the waters and (2) to give meat to the arguments. --Bejnar (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides meeting WP:ACADEMIC #5, he was profiled in the Atlanta Journal Constitution back in 1990 (here); also see here and here. Several of his six academic books have been reviewed multiple times in RSs (WP:AUTHOR). He is so widely quoted in national newspapers and in hits on Google scholar (also search with his middle initial, "N"), I also think he probably meets WP:ACADEMIC #1 in addition to WP:GNG. This doesn't seem like a close case to me, certainly if the goal is to test WP:ACADEMIC #5. I would take this to that guideline's talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even as I typed my keep !vote above, other eds have already added other good RSs. Novaseminary (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allitt's ideas are widely discussed and debated in the scholarly literature, for example he is the subject of articles by Jay P. Dolan, "A view from the right: Catholic conservatives," Reviews in American History, March 95, Vol. 23 Issue 1, pp 165-69; Albert Gelpi, "The Catholic Presence in American Culture," American Literary History, Spring 1999, Vol. 11 Issue 1, pp 196-212; and Barry D. Riccio, "Patrick Allitt's 'Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America: 1950-1985," Cithara May 1995, Vol. 34 Issue 2, pp 37-41. In addition the reviews of his books emphasize his broad learning and understanding of American culture. For example, in the leading journal Church History (June 2005) we learn that "Allitt deftly sketches the complex philosophical and theological issues surrounding the "death of God" controversies in the 1960s, and then provides numerous examples of how this issue had cultural and social impact. In another fascinating section on church architecture, Allitt provides numerous anecdotes to suggest how religious congregations, leaders, and architects envisioned new relationships between theologies and sacred space. Allitt seems most at home with this material, and the true value of the book lies in these nimble and thought-provoking discussions.' [by Prof Courtney Bender, Columbia U.]; Professor Moore of Cornell University writing in Catholic Historical Review, July 2004, says "Any writer who has attempted to track a subject through a long stretch of time appreciates how difficult it is to balance the requirement of inclusiveness with a consistent elaboration of central themes. Patrick Allitt in his confident survey of American religion since World War II succeeds in this task far better than most and has produced a volume of immense value to university students, general readers, and scholars needing a reliable reference source." This is strong praise for a scholar from leading RS and certainly validates that he is a notable historian. --and obviously it meets the criteria of "substantive coverage in reliable third-party publications". Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bleh, I think that's enough reference adding for now. Scholarly reference searching is rather boring, I must say. :/ Anyways, what they said. The references clearly show that he is notable. I don't know how to calculate H-index's myself, but i'm sure his number would be quite significant for his field of study. Silver seren^C 18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his history of American conservatism. I believe there are far too many articles about non-notable persons, but he meets the criteria. TFD (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I withdraw the nomination, even if a great deal (all?) of the cited material is book reviews, and not about the man. Can anyone suggest a person who is kept just for his/her chair holding? --Bejnar (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- about the man --you mean his birthplace and education and family??? The cites are about his ideas, his research skills, his ability to interpret history, his influence on scholars. That's where notability emerges for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California Biblical University and Seminary

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. gNews archive (searching for "California Biblical University") retrieves 1 press release and 3 trivial newspaper mentions discussing the founder. Had been redirected to founder per consensus on talk because the school is not notable, but recent ES claims school is no longer affiliated with founder. I cannot find mention of this school on the "Main Place Fellowship" church website inline linked in the article, and the church is in Orange City, while the school is listed as being in Irvine. I had proded, but it was removed by a single-purpose editor with apparent inside information. The school might become notable in the future, but it doesn't seem to be there yet. Novaseminary (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore (and update) this version that existed on 26 April 2009 and keep. The current article is a blatant advert -- with no sources, no wikilinks, and no categories -- for an entity that appears not to be notable. However, the previous article described the school of this name that Robert Morey operated for a few years, and that had some third-party coverage (largely uncomplimentary). If there is any valid content about the current version of the school, it could be added to the older article. Further, I don't see that the discussion at Talk:California Biblical University and Seminary#Merge proposal resulted in consensus to merge the old content to Robert Morey. There was consensus that there were problems with the article, but that's about all the consensus that I can see. (I hasten to point out, however, that I was a participant in that discussion.) --Orlady (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough on the murky consensus (or lack of it) for the redirect. But I am not suggesting the article be redirected again, just deleted because it fails WP:N per the lack of available sources. Do you think the sources in the April 2009 version meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG? I don't see it. I only see one possible unaffiliated RS, the LA Times article (the link in that version of the WP article is dead, but I think this is the cited source). There is only a passing mention of the school, nothing substantial or non-trivial. And in searches over the last few days, I have not found RSs to meet any variant of WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it was an accredited degree-granting institution it would normally be presumed notable, but since it does not appear to be accredited by anybody, I don't think that standard applies. It boasts that it has nothing to do with the U.S department of education and that it "remains committed to working within the regulatory authorities of the State of Califoria" (which I interpret as meaning it is not actually accredited by the state of California). So it has to achieve notability through independent coverage, and it doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no information about accreditation, and from the California State website, it appears to be unaccredited. The college I teach at, and all other colleges of which I am aware, proudly market their accreditation or reaffirmation status. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The source claiming that the subject college received a religious exemption is a stale, broken link. I can't find anything about that online now. Can someone help? Bearian (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the broken link you are talking about, but would this provide the information you wanted about a "religious exemption"? [1] It says "Generally, institutions that are exempt from state approval are exempt for the following reasons: ... (3) The institution teaches religion and meets all the requirements for a religious exemption." I would take that as meaning that they are not accredited and don't have to be in order to operate in California - but it would also mean that they do not fulfill our usual requirements for "assumed notability". --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kolczynski

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

Author who has just published his first book and appears not to be notable per WP:AUTHOR. CSD declined on grounds that ~~he is "a published author"~~ there is an assertion of notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I declined the CSD because there was an assertion of notability, not because he is a "published author", and plainly stated so in the edit summary. There is a difference between the two, clearly spelled out at WP:CSD#A7. Frank | talk 17:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: your edit summary read "assertion of notability exists (published author)". My AfD summary is sloppy and I'm amending it. But I do find it amusing that you have now AfD'd the book that is the sole assertion of notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious, ongoing project, with policies. An author may or may not be notable even if his works are not individually notable. There's no dichotomy here. And - again - I have not asserted that the subject of this article is notable. I've merely declined to delete the article as a WP:CSD#A7 because notability was asserted. The criteria for books are different, and I feel The Oxford Virus is clearly not notable, but that does not qualify an article for WP:CSD#A7 either. I don't find these policies amusing; they are the basis for how things work around here. You describe yourself as "amused" that I have "now AfD'd the book", when in fact I did so right after declining this CSD, and 27 minutes before you created this AfD. My nom of the book had nothing to do with you or this AfD...it was based on policy. Frank | talk 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested you AfD'd the book because of me, nor did I suggest (as you imply) that I found the policies amusing. But I do suggest, in the interests of keeping the AfD on track, that we call a halt to this exchange. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no suggestion in the article or in the publisher's information that Kolczynski meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. None of the citations in the article are independent. Having read the stub over thrice, I am not sure what "assertion of notability" Frank was referring to, unless Frank meant Kolczynski's bronze metal in high school at the International Chemistry Olympiad, which I don't think qualifies. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider being a published author to be sufficient assertion of notability to disqualify an article from speedy deletion, simply from reading WP:CSD#A7. It seems you disagree, and indeed other admins might also disagree. However, in this case, I was the one who got to it first, and that was my judgment. I don't think any harm has come to the project as a result. I do, however, think that using CSD as a blunt instrument instead of as a scalpel would harm the project, and I decline to use administrator tools in that fashion. Frank | talk 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's move on from the difference of opinion regarding the feasibility of the A7 CSD. We're at the AfD stage now. Notability has not been established according to WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG criteria. References provided are neither significant nor independent of the subject. Recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Adam Kolczynski is a published author who has been critically and independently reviewed. Stylistically, there is nothing about the article to suggest advertising or gratuitous self-promotion, discrete or blatant. There is more basis for notability than countless other articles accepted to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. UK-based author, Veronica Stallwood, has also used Fantastic Fiction as a sole reference. Standards must be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk • contribs) — 86.163.170.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. Basing an argument on "What about article x" is rarely a good idea. In this particular instance, I was able, in less than five minutes, to find three solid references re Veronica Stallwood, one a biographical profile and two which place her body of work in context, as well as several minor references to her involvement with writers' workshops and a university creative writing course. The difference between Stallwood and Adam Kolczynski is that these sorts of references exist for Stallwood (who has also published something like 15 novels): that's why, in Wikipedia's terms, she is (probably) "notable" and he (IMO) isn't. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, by a wide margin QU ^TalkQu 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Kolczynski satisfies the criteria for notability NOT by virtue of being a published author (anyone can self-publish), but by being independently reviewed. In a heavily ring-fenced industry like publishing, 5 independent reviews are not a foregone conclusion. Suggest a 4-week period of grace to see if further citations/references can be found to convince others of sufficient notability. I repeat: appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.98.226 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 109.154.98.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Actually, notability is established according to policy and guidelines. An independent review does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in an online database such as Fantastic Fiction. You may review the notability factors at WP:AUTHOR for clarification. Cindamuse (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bejnar puts it best. Notability is not asserted and it certainly isn't shown. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Frank puts it best when he says: 'I consider being a published author to be sufficient assertion of notability to disqualify an article from speedy deletion, simply from reading WP:CSD#A7.' Need a consensus for deletion, speedy or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.117.90 (talk • contribs) — 86.135.117.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: I am striking out your "don't delete" here because you already !voted "don't delete" above. Only one "vote" per person, please, although you are free to comment as much as you like. (And please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~ at the end of your comment. Thanks.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of this article is a copyright violation of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adam-Kolczynski/e/B0044UL5JC/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 and has been extensively edited accordingly. Cindamuse (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation if sources are developed later to show notability. For now this is a non-notable author of a non-notable book. His book has been published, yes, and it is listed at Amazon, but I could not find a single thing written ABOUT either the book or the author, as required by Wikipedia guidelines. The book was only published this month (13 October 2010 according to Amazon), so it might get some sourcing in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoNoLita

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

Hoax:

1. No Google hits for "SoNoLita" except this article and the image on it
2. None of the refs in the article refer to the term
3. The ref "sonolita.com" (now removed) redirects to this page
4. The "neighborhood" described is 7 square blocks and a parklet (actually less than that since the blocks are "square" but get narrower as they go uptown)
5. The article says "The movement (to start a new neigborhood) was started in August 2010 by a local resident who was dissatisfied with the lack of clarity about which neighborhood the area belonged to" - obviously, the person who created this article
6. This is confirmed by the logo in the article, which was uploaded to Commons by the author of the article as "own work" [2]. Given the text in the logo, the author apparently objects to his or her neighborhood being included in Chinatown.
7. Confirmation also from the author's comments here: "I have spent a considerable amount of my free time trying to launch this campaign", a tacit admission that the neighborhood does not exist

It's difficult enough to write articles about NYC neighborhoods -- because they have no official boundaries, which are determined instead by usage -- without jokes like this confusing the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this is a hoax per se, but the main part of the article is unsourced. (The neighborhood described in this article may consist of actual locations in New York City, but there is no clear evidence that they are called "SoNoLita".) Furthermore, the creator of the article appears to have a conflict of interest in that they may be the person trying to campaign for the recognition of this neighborhood under the "SoNoLita" name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the places in the article exist: the streets, the buildings, etc. They are just not the part of a "neighborhood" named SoNoLita, which, as far as I can tell, does not exist, and for which the creator of the article provides no rferences whatsoever. If this is not a deliberate hoax, then it's an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote someone's pet project, as should be deleted as being promotional. If the author's campaign is successful, then perhaps the neighborhood would be qualified to have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notification of this discussion has been made to Wikiproject NYC, here Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails minimum verifiability requirements -- since there's no independent reliable source that even mentions it. Antandrus (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence of this designation for already existing and named neighborhoods, either formal or informal. --Oakshade (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author has made changes to the article, so that is now about a "proposed" new neighborhood, and I extended these edits, removing any extensive statements of fact which were not sourced. However, what remains is still an unsourced lede about a campaign to make anew neighborhood, with no verification that the campiagn actually exists, and still nothing to show that it's been referred to in any reliable source. Even in this somewhat stripped down state, the article does not pass WP:V. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Klassik

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

It is unclear what makes this person notable. The claims to notability that I can see include being the son of a notable person, working for a Grammy-nominated notable person, being influenced by notable persons, working for notable people, and being photographed with a notable person. Alas, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I declined a G4 CSD nom because I think the article is somewhat different from the one at the time the deletion discussion occurred, and because I am a little mystified at that deletion discussion's result. A second AfD seems the best way to go. Frank | talk 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete This is silly that this article is up for deletion. This article does seem a bit dry, but an expanded info tag should be placed on it. It seem as if additions are still being added, but it currently meets the criteria for a wikipedia article. Good by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldfire (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This is silly" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article. "Meets the criteria" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article either, unless you can point to the appropriate inclusion criteria you believe the subject meets. Can you provide a link to the WP:NOTABILITY criteria (or even just a single one) that So Klassik meets? Frank | talk 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Klassik is The Klassikz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.78.60 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.59.78.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. None of the sources verifies notability (they don't even mention "So Klassik" but "The Klassikz") and most are just blogs and not reliable sources. Most of the article reads like an attempt to claim notability by association. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not currently meet WP:music or WP:GNG. The author also has a Conflict of Issue as stated in his summary [3].- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete Everyone in the industry knows who So Klassik is. Someone just needs to add to this article. Looks a bit bare to me. I'll do some research and update as needed when I can. Definitely a don't delete though. I believe he's won a couple of awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.35.63 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 76.99.35.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which policy allows an article to remain because "everyone in the industry knows who <X> is"? Please provide a policy-based reason the article meets criteria for inclusion. Frank | talk 18:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Robert L. Gordon III. The subject fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I agree that notability is not inherited, but I am OK with redirects in cases like these. Location (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete As a representative of SPEMG, one of the 4 studios that S.K. works at, it is in our opinion that he is indeed noteworthy. There is a greater list of accomplishments than what is represented in this article. The question is, what needs to happen in order to settle this discussion? Does the article need to be re-written? Who should write it? His publicist had no part in this article. We are forwarding this to her. 71.242.255.56 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)SPEMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.255.56 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources need to be provided which directly discuss him in significant detail. Press releases and passing mentions don't count. Getting a publicist involved is not recommended as a conflict of interest makes it hard to write a neutral and appropriate encyclopedia article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give Article a Chance I'd like to move to give this article a chance while someone can properly take the time and fill it out. It's currently a shell that needs to be filled in. I'm quite sure there is plenty of material out there can can be sourced to fit the criteria of wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Give_an_article_a_chance

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldfire (talk • contribs)

Well, find it then. See WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find significant coverage in any reliable source listed in the article or otherwise so this fails WP:GNG. I see no compelling reason to "give article a chance" [sic] as the creator of the article has had since June when the article was last deleted to find some actual reliable sources to establish notability or to work on it in userspace and ask for feedback, but appears to have done nothing of the sort. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my position in the last afd. I'll add to that the above stated WP:NOTINHERITED. delete and block sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete It seems like there are a lot of people against this article just to be against it, instead of putting in work to update it(in true music-wikipedia fashion). Get off your arse and update this darn thing properly. Through quick searches, I've found more than enough material on this topic by going through some music websites............ Musicminer (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — Musicminer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you have found significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you are welcome to update the article with that information yourself. Location (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance anyone else is curious, I've filed an SPI related to this AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Virus

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

Debut book; "critically acclaimed" but does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK. No GNews hits (even in Google UK) to establish independent notability. Frank | talk 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This, like the Adam Kolczynski article, appears to be discrete advertising by Theforward; there is no basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. G12/Copyvio of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Virus-Adam-Kolczynski/dp/095658800X Additionally, notability has not been established according to the criteria presented at WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Does not appear to have received a literary award; is not the basis for film, other art form, event, or political or religious movement; does not appear to be the subject of educational studies. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the copyvio content (and the speedy tag) in the hope that this discussion can run its course. I think we'll be better off having a completed discussion closed by an impartial admin; otherwise an early close via speedy might mean we deal with this article again in another form very shortly. Frank | talk 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree, thanks for catching that. I went ahead and removed even more copyvio in the article from Amazon and the publisher's website, as well as quotes that lacked a source or citation. Cindamuse (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. The Oxford Virus is a published work which has been critically and independently reviewed. Stylistically, there is nothing about the article to suggest advertising, discrete or blatant. There is more basis for notability than countless other articles accepted to the project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) — 86.161.116.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note. Appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. UK-based author, Veronica Stallwood, has also used Fantastic Fiction as a sole reference. Standards must be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC) — 86.163.170.115 (talk[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Kolczynski satisfies the criteria for notability NOT by virtue of being a published author (anyone can self-publish), but by being independently reviewed. In a heavily ring-fenced industry like publishing, 5 independent reviews are not a foregone conclusion. Suggest a 4-week period of grace to see if further citations/references can be found to convince Frank and others of sufficient notability. I repeat: appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 109.154.98.226 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 109.154.98.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Actually, notability is established according to policy and guidelines. An independent review does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in an online database such as Fantastic Fiction. You may review the notability factors at WP:NBOOK for clarification. Cindamuse (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, substantial independent published reviews are exactly the sources that usually show notability of a book, just as they do for a product, or a performer. They're the best references. The question rather is whether this book has them. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Project guidelines state that a consensus is needed for deletion. The above debate underlines that we're a long way from reaching consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not quite correct the "process proceeds based on community consensus", but community consensus is that it is the quality of the arguments that prevails. One or more individuals may disagree, and a general consensus can still be reached, as I think it has in this case. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Bejnar: it seems that the burden of responsibility is on you and others to PROVE that Adam Kolczynski is not notable. That would involve you contacting each of the 5 reviewers to find out whether or not a full, published book review (rather than a blurb) is in the pipeline. Removing the Kolczynski article BEFORE this process of due diligence would risk prompting a heated response from the 5 reviewers mentioned in the 'Oxford Virus' article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — 86.161.116.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Your assumption is incorrect. The responsibility to ensure that the article meets criteria for inclusion rests with the author of the article and/or editors that wish to retain the article for whatever reason. Editors opposing deletion need to specifically show how the article meets the criteria, which can be found at WP:NBOOK. Editor(s) making recommendations to keep the article have failed to align their assertions with Wikipedia guidelines. As such, these recommendations to keep the article are insufficient and essentially ineffective. You can find out more about the process of discussing an article nominated for deletion here. Cindamuse (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable book without coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Armbrust: are you calling The Ealing Times, the Russian London Courier, and Euro Crime unreliable? Are you questioning the professional credibility of author and academic Dr. Catherine Andreyev, as well as author John Curran of HarperCollins? All 5 reviewers have staked either their own, or their publication's reputation on reviewing The Oxford Virus. Few novels by new independent publishers command this level of coverage. That alone makes Kolczynski and his debut novel notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk)

Note: I'm striking out your !vote here because you have already said "don't delete" above. Only one "vote" per person, please, although you are welcome to comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. While The Ealing Times and Russian London Courier would be considered reliable, the EuroCrime.co.uk website would not be considered reliable as a collection of self-published reviews by one individual, lacking oversight. That said, a search of the archives of these sources reveal NOTHING regarding this book or its author. Puzzling why these sources have been offered, while they do not support any of the claims made in the article. I am recommending deletion of the article due to the lack of notability according to criteria found at WP:NBOOKS, as well as the copyright violation. This article is inappropriate in all regards. Cindamuse (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the above sources were offered because they are the "reviews" listed at Amazon.[4] Amazon always manages to come up with something. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for re-creation if sources are developed later to show notability. For now this is a non-notable author and a non-notable book. The book has been published, yes, and it is listed at Amazon, but I could not find a single thing written ABOUT either the book or the author, as required by Wikipedia guidelines. The book was only published this month (13 October 2010 according to Amazon), so it might get some sourcing in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books are normally shown to be notable by 3rd party independent substantial reviews, though there are peripheral considerations, like demonstrating their presence on a best seller list. Such reviews fit exactly the definition of 3rd party sources for purposes of WP:N, and meet the WP:GNG. I consider the reviews listed in the earlier versions of the article inadequate for the purpose. We do not usually support local papers, whose reviews tend to b e indiscriminate, and certainly not blurbs written by other authors--they normally do it for each other as a favour. I cannot find any usable ones in the usual sources. When they appear, if they do, there can be an article. And showing the author notable is not enough--there are some famous authors whose every published work is notable, but the criterion for this is usually set very high--and in any case, since this is his only published book, the author is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. And furthermore, there is actual proof of non-notability: WorldCat shows its presence in only one library, the British Library--where the publisher is required to deposit it for copyright. . DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Weed

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

Looks like a real product [5], but the info in the article is possibly a hoax or false advertising per ticket:2010100610003448. The only ref doesn't seem reliable.

Product doesn't look encyclopedically notable. -- Jeandré, 2010-10-16t16:28z 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some coverage--that is, there are mentions of the product in articles found through Google News. But I have yet to come across anything significant in a reliable source (there's stuff on blogs about this Air Force stuff, and the 'mentions', by the way, also note that connection). The book is from a reprint press and its contents are not accessible; given the rest of the article in tone and content, and given that it's not a notable press publishing the book, I have little reason to assume on good faith that there is significant discussion that is of value in that book. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book source is available as a PDF here. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hunted around and couldn't find anything of real significance either. Risker (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep with the caveat that the article probably does need work and I can't corroborate all that fighter pilot talk. A Google search brings up thousands of pages of results however, and at least where I live, the sweet tea vodka has become pretty popular, so I feel like there should be some reliable sources somewhere. Bds69 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The article is misleading; Jeremiah Weed is a brand of blended bourbon whisky, that also makes the Jeremiah Weed liqueur and the sweet tea liqueur. The liqueur appears to be what got into USAF traditions, and those traditions are verifiable in what looks like reliable sources.[6][7] That gives this product at least some sourceable cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Smerdis, there are indeed sources for cultural significance as to the USAF tradition. I added Phil's book url to the article's reference for the USAF story. The article does need a bit of work, 'tis true. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbrooke Street Foundation

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

No citations, longstanding orphan page. Daveindc (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, and 0 news.g hits seem to indicate lack of encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2010-10-16t16:43z
Delete. To Jeandre's findings I may add that there are a LOT of hits in Google Books--and they're all Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure they do good work, but not every private foundation is notable per Wikipedia's standards, and this one does not seem to be. Nothing found on searching. The only "reference" provided at the article is the organization's minimalist website. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of iPhone OS applications

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

This article was turned into a redirect to iOS (Apple) in July 2010. This redirection has not been contested. The redirecting editor used the following rationale: "by now, way, WAY outdated. the categories are best for this purpose." I agree with that, but find the redirect unhelpful, because there is no such list in the target article. Therefore I've undone the redirect in order to submit this topic to AfD. It should be deleted outright because it is not a suitable topic for a list. There are probably millions of apps and tens of thousands of notable apps by now. Sandstein 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, such a list doesn't look like it can be encyclopedically notable. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandré du Toit‎ (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY; categories superior in this particular case. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate behaviour

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

It's true that corportions behave, and sometimes misbehave. It's also true that a Google search will give you thousands of instances of the words "corporate" and "behaviour" next to each other. However there does not seem to be any consistant topic to write an article on. The present article, although it seems to be well-intended, consists of a lot of original research and theorizing. Probably better not to have an article, although the subject could be covered under corporation itself. What is a corporation but a type of human behaviour anyway? Borock (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article appears to have been created just to promote the ideas of one person about corporations, Jerry Mander. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references to Mander and his ideas have been removed. However, the newly stubbed version of this article doesn't contain enough content for me to want to change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure POV-pushing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much hope for the restart of the article, but let's see it develop and perhaps it can turn into something useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as these: What is corporate behaviour?, Changing patterns of corporate behaviour, Guidelines for corporate behaviour. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between "corporation" and "corporate behaviour." A corporation is only behaviour. It has no substantial body other than that. Borock (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous aspects to corporations - see corporate finance, corporate structure, corporate strategy, legal personality, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is behaviour (or behavior for Americans), how humans act and relate to each other. Borock (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking: IF the article was about how people behave differently when they come together in a defined group, as seems to be suggested by at least one of the sources provided by Colonel Warden, AND that was established as a notable use of the expression then I'd say keep. Is that what is happening? But if it's about the behaviour of corporations then delete, since that topic should be covered in corporation itself. Borock (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we don't have articles on "Trade union behaviour", "Church behaviour", "Political party behaviour", etc. Or, to use everyone's favourite example, we don't have one article on Adolf Hitler and another on Adolf Hitler's behaviour. :-) Borock (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous articles about AH's behaviour including Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, &c. See Category:Adolf Hitler. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corporatism. Much of the information in this article is theory and original research, lacking verifiability. Corporate behavior, as a whole, cannot be quantified, varying greatly from one corporation/company/business to the next; as well as from one industry, profession, functional level, city, country, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. to the next. In my opinion, this has been sufficiently presented at Corporatism, along with several links to similar disciplines within the employment relations field and the study of sociology. Cindamuse (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have reduced the article to a stub and propose that it be built up from good sources such as Corporate Behaviour in Theory and History. The opinions above, which were based upon the previous content, are now obsolete. Per our deletion policy: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of us know that, even without the bold print. Thank you, Colonel, for stubbing and sourcing. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sentence is bold on the policy page and the emphatic nature of the statement seemed worth preserving. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following the stub job by Colonel Warden, I continue recommend redirection of the article, albeit to Employment relations, rather than to Corporatism. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can easily be expanded, as shown by the references as listed by the col., & as shown on G Books. Actually, I would just have suggested sourcing, not stubbifying, but no reason not to rewrite if its preferred. Cindamuse's latest suggestion for redirect seems to ignore most of the parts of the subject as shown by the references--their earlier opinion that V is impossible has been sufficiently refuted. "Corporations" is a very general subject, and articles of major specific aspects like this are appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fur massage

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

Non-notable topic. Zero ghits on Books or Scholar Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure it's real, but WP's rules do not allow an article without published sources about the topic.Borock (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick note: not so. An AfD can close as "kept" if there is sufficient indication, possibly from published sources, that the topic meets notability guidelines; the article does actually have a reference to a published book. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know how you got zero hits, nom, but I got more than zero. Kenilworth and Borock, are you both of age for steamy literature? Seriously, Google Books delivers a number of sources that establish notability. I will stick a few in the article, though possibly in an inelegant manner. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old enough to know that a "fur massage-glove" is not the same as a "fur-massage glove", that the book quoted is a work of fiction and that "für massage" is German for something different. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fiction it was, as I thought I indicated, but don't tell Mrs. Drmies, who thought it pretty exciting. "Für" means "for"; those hits are obviously to be disregarded. This particular hyphen issue (hyphen-issue?) strikes me as semantic.

I don't see the text at the urls given for the Macleod and St Claire references. Do they go beyond dictionary definitions? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supported by several references. It does not need a whole book on the topic, a page or two in several books is enough to justify the article existence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drmies and I have fixed up the article and added references. This article now meets the requirements of WP:N - Hydroxonium (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there about the article which is worth having it be a separate article from the main massage article? In what way is this any different from making an article like white keyboard or 19 inch monitor or itchy sweater? Keyboards can be white, monitors come in different sizes, sweaters can be itchy, we can find references to this in various places, but it doesn't mean we need a separate article for them. Massages can be done using any number of fabrics, tools, substances, and fur is one of them. I see nothing in this article which isn't essentially contained either in the title or the main massage article. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search and Google book search both show plenty of results. Others have sorted through some of them and found valid sources. Dream Focus 04:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources indicate notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I obviously have a different access to Google Books, since I can't see text at some of these links. But let me do my best.
- Lewis. self-published non-reliable source. 11 word definition on the term.
- Fritz. Can't see text but seems to be irrelevant anyway.
- Ms. "I like rabbit-fur massage gloves".
- McIlvenna. Does not mention "fur massage". Mentions "fur glove" in a list of things you can use for massage.
- MacLeod. Can't see any text at url supplied. Quote please?
- St Claire. Can't see any text at url supplied. Quote please?
- Mumford. Does not mention "fur massage". Mentions "fur glove" as a thing to use for massage.

None of this adds up to "significant coverage". Can anyone point to anything beyond a definition of the term? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete We already have an article on massage. Fur massage is massage done with fur. I'm not seeing any indication from the article or from the sources that this needs to be a separate article from the main massage article. While we do have articles on different types of massage, like Bowen Technique and Medical massage, I can't see any reason to potentially have separate articles for leather massage, fur massage, velcro massage, cotton massage, silk massage, and thousands of other possible fabrics and substances. Can anyone think of a reason for this to be split off the main article? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I've changed my comment above to Delete. All of the Keep votes above merely say "There are sources saying that this exists". Marge Simpson's hair exists, but we don't have a separate article on it. The entire content of this article boils down to "Fur massage is massage done with fur". The rest of it is content which could go in the main massage article, if it were worth having there, which is probably isn't. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources for specific notability. Merging into Massage is over=generalizing. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio

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

This isn't an article, it consists of nothing other than a template. If a proper use can't be found for the template, then that's probably a good indication that we don't actually need it. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

I am the creator of both articles. Thank you for leaving a note on my Talk page. Since the pages are not yet 24h old, you could have found my name easy in History's first page, circa row 5.-DePiep (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom, the second sentence reads like it is about the template, not the article. Could you clarify? Also, since the page is barely 19hrs old when nominated, could you explain why you skipped all thoughts re stubbing and tagging? -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- More to the point, can you explain why you have created these two articles merely for the purpose of transcluding the templates? Is there no pre-existing article where they could be used? If not, can these be built into genuine articles? Discussion about the templates cannot be divorced entirely from discussion about the articles. Either the articles are unnecessary, or the templates (which appear to be single use) are, in which case they should be substituted and deleted, or they both are. PC78 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - ~~Speedy keep~~. Nom is trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree, his question is entirely justified. Please answer it. Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom suggests in the non-answer my questions were not to the point. I still think they are valid. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is, that the nom does not treat the article and templates as a stub. Within 20 hrs after creation, the only tag they can think of is AfD. They could have added stub, added issue (maintenance) hatnotes, and there are four talkpages available (plus mine makes five). None was used. In OP the nom did not contemplate merging or improving at all. It only says: "I don't get it, so delete". And concluding "single use" within one day is showing their impatience, no more. Calling my questions not "to the point" in the very thread where I put them, and then starting another thread is off-topic and trolling. They could have asked these questions elsewhere (and, of course, beforehand). Now since other editors have contributed, I struck my speedy keep here and will conclude later in the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not trolling. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained and answered below, in a more becoming language. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest:
- (1)Merge both to International Phonetic Alphabet, as they currently don't do anything except transclude a template. Those two templates should be transcluded on the IPA article instead. So redirecting the articles to the IPA article, and moving the transclusions over would fix the problem of lack of content except for a single template transclusion.
- (2)Copy Transwiki both templates to Wiktionary, as this would be very useful on Wiktionary's IPA appendices, to figure out how to pronounce all those squiggly characters across the dictionary entries on Wiktionary.
- 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Merge: more likely the template, not the article, will be transcluded into IPA (and Vowel, and Consonant). There could be a question of the chart being repeated, which I planned to Talk at the appropriate place.

re Transwiki: well, that says something about usefulness then? But I suggest the template should be transcluded, not the article. We might expect that the article here will be improved with text and sources and so. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the transwiki-tag from article to template (twice). I cannot judge correctness of the transwiki proposal, it is not my field of knowledge. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason to merge the article as the only content is a template transclusion. We can just delete the article and transclude the template on the other page. Transwiki to wiktionary is an excellent idea, but once again we don't need the article for that, just the template itself. Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified IPA -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: nom writes: If a proper use can't be found - from hour 1 each article was linked to from over 230 pages in mainspace.

I'll add a stub-template (twice). Those thinking about deletion, please keep in mind that the articles are created to grow. These stubs just did not start with an elementary text, but with a template. Why should it not become something like this? -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to show it was linked from over 230 pages? I find that hard to believe, as it is currently linked from around 25 and only because you modified Template:IPA consonant chart to include a link to the page. With regards to the periodic table article link, I have no idea why we need 16 versions of the periodic table in stand-alone articles|, so I am starting a discussion about it elsewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFF should explain why they are not relevant to this AFD. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA consonant chart is in {{IPA navigation}}, which is on ~230 pages in article space. WLH is lagging, so you don't see them directly yet. I mention the Periodic Table not as "other stuff exists" (I'm not proving a negative point), but as and example of an complete article that is based on a table, rather than on a text primarily. The periodic table comes in multiple forms here at WP, because the Table has multiple angles of approaching (e.g. level of detail). It is illustrating my idea that the articles (based on a table) discussed here should grow into complete articles. -DePiep (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete These are not even articles, they're just copies of templates that already exist. This is easy; I don't know why we're even wasting time discussing it. Also, DePiep, leaving a hundred messages here is not helping your cause, and accusing the initiator of this discussion of trolling for no good reason is certainly not; I suggest you calm down and let others comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it or at least integrate it into another IPA article, as I was actually thinking that it would be nice to have all sound files on one page, so you can compare without delay, and the sound is still in your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.77.199 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 95.152.77.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is not my post. Do not understand why Rjanag is asking me in es. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. After a good rest I'll explain and answer why the situation is as it is now. I promise to stay away from the incendiaries and I have left the matches at home. I'll talk about a singular article & template, but almost everything pertains to the other pair as well.

- As for the need. When describing the IPA Phonetic Alphabet, it is quite encyclopedic to connect a phonetic sound to an alphabetical symbol. And this is what the sound-chart does. This is true, regardless of the form or article the sound-chart appears in.

- Next, when and where to use the sound-chart in WP? First idea is: in the existing article consonant (vowel respectively), or in IPA (both sound-charts). But I did not put them there right away because of editorial reasons. First reason: the sound-chart is big, and considerations of readability of the result might come into play. Second reason, the IPA chart (without sound) is there already, so there would be a repetition of the basic chart. Both reasons have no cut and dried outcome, and it was my expectation and aim that a "merge" or "how to improve usage" discussion would arise, by creating the article. All this is editorial and would appear on a talk page involving co-editors. Imo the outcome should not be on an AfD page, which implies a time-strained decision and is not the place to involve content-savvy editors in the first place.

- Side note 1: A template with soundlinks (but without the chart structure), {{Vowels with audio}}, is deployed already and its replacement will be part of the discussion. Meanwhile, its current usage is supporting the "need" for a sound-chart.

- Side note 2: When, in the end, the template would be single-use only a final substitution could be proposed. But for maintainability of a complicated template I prefer breaking that rule.

- So, I did not want to plunge a big template, adding a duplication, in the existing article. Instead I created an article, a stub clearly, to make the sound-chart available. I see no reason why the stub could not become non-stub. The article is linked to, e.g. from the IPA navigation box. By definition fellow editors can improve the article, and start a merge-discussion. The only strange thing is that the stub is initially a chart, not a basic text. So be it, there is nothing wrong with that.

- I have no exact claim into "should stay article", nor "should be merged". I do state that the sound-chart, which is encyclopedic in essence, should stay to develop from stub and to be discussed for further usage. Both sequences are editorial, and these two developments should not be imposed by AfD.

- So I conclude keep to allow development and start merge-proposal on talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are arguments in favor of keeping this "article", they are arguments in favor of keeping the template, which is an unrelated issue. There is no principled reason why we can't delete this unnecessary page and transclude the template elsewhere, such as IPA or in the WP namespace (something comparable to WP:IPA). The fact of the matter is, this page is not an article, it's just a template transclusion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the templates is in the nom's proposal, full stop. Speedy deleting the article (as you proposed) would leave the template zero-use. And I did write why the chart was not put in another page, so it required an article to be available. Finally, being a stub is no reason for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant of what the nominator said, this is AFD and it is not about the deletion of the template, only the article. Also, nobody in this discussion seems to think the template should be deleted, they just think it should not be on a separate page. If Rjanag really wanted the article speedy deleted he should have stated a criteria as well, right now it just shows the editor does not understand WP:CSD. Yoenit (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is pretty clearly encyclopedic content. The technical aspects of whether the content is formatted within the article or in a template are irrelevant to a deletion discussion, as they make no difference to what it presented to our readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, no one is saying that encyclopedic content should be deleted. The encyclopedic content is already available in a template, {{IPA pulmonics audio}}. The page under discussion here is basically nothing but a transclusion of that template. Why do we need an "article" that does nothing but transclude a template? The template can already be transcluded elsewhere, such as in the IPA article, and in fact already has been. This discussion is not about deleting the template; it's about deleting an unnecessary page that happens to transclude the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is that an article is visible to our readers, the vast majority of whom find our content via web searches, but a template is not. The technical details of how the article is constructed, such as whether coding for the table is in the article itself or transcluded from a template, are irrelevant to our purpose of presenting content to those readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add a few sentences of context. I agree it should not be the bare template, but that's fixable. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avid Technical Resources

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

Non notable company. Created and edited by COI accounts. Most of the company's recognition is regional and national rankings are not of sufficient note (3899 of 5000 on the Inc. list; 26 of 44 in its industry - the reference to which was published by the subject on a PR site.).

No third party sources beyond rankings are provided to support notability. No g-news hits. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Number of sources is no help when they lack quality and relevance. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources which do exist lack any depth to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 October 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) CTJF83 chat 18:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Motorhomes

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

fails WP:BAND . could find hardly any coverage, except this limited coveage in Swedish [8]. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that coverage in swedish is enough for me, this band is a swedish local band and is theirby not mentioned in egnlish sources etc etc.. I have heard of them so I find them notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their music video to into the night is also played from time to time on the Swedish version of MTV. Also can be found on Youtube.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. Neither is appearing from time to time on MTV. Please address how it meets WP:BAND and provide in depth sources. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still you cant deny that being broadcasted on MTVC does indicate notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally deny that. the criterion is WP:BAND simply appearing on MTV does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Two charting singles plus an article in Norrköpings Tidningar newspaper. Mattg82 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not sure the point of simply reaffirming another person's search with the words exactly. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a similar thing on Linda Norgrove. I respect you but please stop being a "Wikipedia-Nanny",--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Swedish language coverage is significant. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Ambassadors

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

A list of largely non-notable people. The Disney Ambassador program itself might be notable, but a list of cast members isn't. Referencing isn't the problem here, since the list can be referenced; the problem is notability. ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of quite non-notable persons. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory. Write an article on Disney Ambassador itself, as was suggested. Borock (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 17 October 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) 09:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waseer

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

Possibly notable ethnic group unable to Find RS for this Group Failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are these the same people as the Wazir? -- BenTels (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very feasible, but I am very unsure. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have, as yet, no opinion as to the notability of this subject, but it's pretty clear from the articles that this Jat gotra is not the same as the Pashtun Wazirs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a normal clan article to me. I seem to recognise some of the family names in there too Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per past outcomes here, clans, tribes, and ethinic groups are generally per se notable. The nomination has not given a real reason. Can they be verified or not? Bearian (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of RS typically fails WP:V The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantiation. The only reference fails at GoogleBooks here. I tried a variety of permutations in GoogleBooks, vol III comes up nicely here, but not with "Waseer". If it is in A Glossary of The Tribes and Castes of The Punjab and North-West Frontier Province Vol.-III, it is not as Waseer. Article may be recreated, if proper sourcing is provided. --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bejnar, for lack of verification. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Quran Code

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

First AFD closed as no consensus, an I closed the subsequent DRV discussion as insufficient consensus to overturn that decision but that the article should be relisted. It appears that the first AFD was affected by meat-puppetry to some degree, and during the DRV, several editors provided well-reasoned arguments that the sources used in the article are insufficient to establish notability. In addition the book is self-published, and the little coverage it has gotten is ideologically motivated. The relisting is procedural, but I have entered my own opinion below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:N presumption that multiple sources implicates notability is a guideline, and I would say a rough guideline at that. This book is self-published and there is no evidence of it having any social or political impact. Interviews with the author and a few fairly local book reviews in local press are very common, and calling that sufficient gives a too broad inclusion standard for articles on books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the admin closing the previous AfD as "no consensus", I agree with Sjakalle's mode of proceeding. I also agree with their reasoning above. Since the book seems to be covered only by two fringe-y sources that agree with (and seem to want to promote) the book's ideological bent, I doubt that we have enough source material that can be used to write a neutral, verifiable article about the book. Sandstein 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published book only taken note off by two websites in the same ideological camp as the author. Not in any libraries, not reviewed by any scholarly journals, the quality press or anyone else beyond a propaganda outlet for israel's settler movement and Choudry's personal website. Wikipedia is being used to elevate a fringe book and its argument, because it isn't getting anywhere on its own.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources. Oore (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Oore (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published book, no substantial coverage in mainstream sources or acedemic sourcesThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm convinced by the comments of Bali ultimate in the DRV. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my arguments in the original AFD (which I'm going to try to add to the box at the top).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Copy/paste my comments from DRV): There is no evidence of this book having a notable presence/recognition in the field of Israel-Palestine books. The publisher not a neutral or mainstream company. Any facts, details from this book - especially the verses that are the basis of the claims made in this book - can be incorporated in Muslim Zionism, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Islam and Judaism and this book used as a source. But not a separate article for the book. Shiva (Visnu) 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL as self published source its not even remotely reliable for that, This guy does not even seem to be notable enough to have his opinion included any where The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or mainstream in any way. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Biak earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This earthquake meets every part of the suggested Notability guidelines for earthquake articles. It's just about notable for the magnitude alone, it caused multiple deaths, it is covered in more than one published paper etc.. It does need expanding but there's no question regarding its notability IMO. Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mag 8, killed 100+ people. Enough WP:RS too. Lugnuts (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Snow. Over a magnitude of 8, with casualties. There are admittedly many sketchy earthquake articles launched, but this is so far over the notability bar that it baffles. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Very notable quake, just needs expansion. RapidR (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to invoke any proposed specialised notability guideline here, because notability can easily be proved the old-fashioned way with significant conerage in independent reliable sources such as these academic papers and these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Oaxaca earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of an article does not need to be newsworthy, it needs to be notable and this earthquake is clearly so. There were multiple deaths and the event has been described in several published scientific papers. What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Earthquakes over 7.0 should be included on the basis of per se notability as they are rare and historic events; those under magnitude 7.0 should only be included if the smash lots of stuff or squish lots of people. That's not (YET) official policy, but if it were, it would end most of the bad earthquake articles and time-consuming and acrimonious challenges of same. Per Mikenorton above, the significance of this particular event has passed the test of time and this article calls for expansion rather than deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Wuqia earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the sources is the USGS list of significant earthquakes, what more do you need? Also has good coverage in the scientific literature. Should be expanded, but that's no criterion for deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes Rule of 7, I've said my piece on this above. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - per this proposed guideline, which the consesus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. However, it is not clear that this earthquake meets all the guideline's factors. For example, it was a 7.4 on the Mercallu, but did any humans die? Bearian (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the guidelines suggest that more than one criteria should normally be met, rather than all. There were 64 deaths according to the infobox and at least 71 according to the USGS ref (clearly it does need some work and it's on my list of stubs to expand). Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! The refs I read did not clearly establish that, but I did not look into every cite. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Java earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable. This article doesn't suggest that this earthquake was newsworthy and it doesn't have any sources that do more than just demonstrate its existence, not its significance. Eucberar (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So 250 deaths isn't significant in your view. As notable as they come. Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 250 deaths would make it newsworthy! If that happened today, it would probably get a spot on the frontpage under ITN. Lugnuts (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is significant enough, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep for a challenge so terrible that it verges on the disruptive. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, the consensus is overwhelming for a keep of this 7+ earthquake; there were over 250 deaths, it was an unusually shallow subduction earthquake, and an odd slow-moving tsunami was generated. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly very notable. RapidR (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Bohai earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable Eucberar (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, but this one is on the basis of deaths, intensity and coverage in the scientific literature. Mikenorton (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has met the suggested criteria for notable earthquakes. Qrfqr (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some little, not very well known earthquakes aren't notable, but this one isn't one of those. This one is significant enough to be notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Diego Grez (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not every content challenge is worthy. This rationale is dumb, but no different than the argument being used by the nominator here. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, it was a 7+ earthquake, and there were 10 deaths. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Tehuacán earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable Eucberar (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am against the nomination of the deletion. I would like to know what's the reason, and what's the ideal criteria for a valid earthquake entry for user EucBerar. Qrfqr (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, but this one is on the basis of deaths, magnitude, intensity and coverage in scientific literature. Again expand rather than delete. Mikenorton (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage, not non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not every content challenge is worthy. This rationale is dumb, but no different than the argument being used by the nominator here. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, it was a 7+ earthquake, there were 15 deaths, historic buildings were destroyed across Oaxaca, and the state was declared a disaster area. It was also an "inslab earthquake" - which must be unusual for that fault area. The article has seven reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Burica earthquake

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

Not every earthquake is notable Eucberar (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am against the nomination of the deletion. I would like to know what's the reason, and what's the ideal criteria for a valid earthquake entry for user EucBerar. Qrfqr (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This earthquake just about meets the proposed criteria for notability, it reached an intensity of VII and several scientific papers have been written about it (mainly in spanish, but that's irrelevant). Expand rather than delete. Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every earthquake is notable yes, but this one isn't one of those. This one is significant enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikenorton above. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, it was a 6.2 to 6.5 or VII earthquake (depending on the scales used and sources), and there were no deaths. However, I have found several sources that show it has attracted particular scientific interest -- see , e.g. Pictures of the damage from this earthquake by a geologist from U. of Arizona. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Chagos Archipelago earthquake

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

Not every earthquake needs an article Eucberar (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am against the namination of the deletion. I would like to know what's the reason, and what's the ideal criteria for a valid earthquake entry for user EucBerar. Qrfqr (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although not every earthquake needs an article, you have to have reasons based on policy to propose deletion. This earthquake is marginally notable as it appears in several published scientific papers (after taking a quick look). As with other articles that you have nominated, this should be expanded rather than deleted. Mikenorton (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy given by nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Diego Grez (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some earthquakes do need articles. This rationale is dumb, but no different than the argument being used by the nominator here. This series of earthquake article notability challenges offered NO RATIONALE WHATSOEVER for their exclusion. They should all be given speedy administrative keeps. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this proposed guideline, which the consensus seems to show is reasonable, and for which I happen to agree. In this case, it was about a 7.7 earthquake (on the M-s scale), and had a small, 40 cm tsunami. Bearian (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 October 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 - Dead heat here. Until such time as editors interested in this subject resolve the issues surrounding the article name and its relationship to other related articles there is no compelling reason to prematurely delete.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic views on Mary

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

POV fork of Mary (mother of Jesus) mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —History2007 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*~~Delete~~ No point in deleting. Previous content was deleted a few days ago. I should change my vote, given that the article has been effectively deleted, with all the previous content disappearing. It is now marked for rescue, so it will be rescued. History2007 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this page is as follows: This merge proposal was initiated by user:Malke2010. The proposal faced strong opposition. Once the merge proposal seemed doomed, large amounts of text were rapidly trucked to this page from other pages as a content fork (e.g. see this existing page), as pointed out by user:mark nutley. There is no new content in this page, except via "rapid cut and paste" from other articles. And the page's title and direction are in effect rapid replicas of the Roman Catholic Marian page that Malke2010 wanted merged, but was not successful based on the views of other editors. Malke2010 has since suggested that the article she wanted to merge before should merge here. So first the attempt was made to merge "A" with "B", and when the merge attempt was about to fail, article "C" was created here overnight and a suggestion to merge "A" with "C" was made. I see this as a WP:POINT issue, as explained on Talk:Catholic_views_on_Mary and as a clear content fork, created by "rapid text trucking". A simple look at this existing page shows that this is just a "rapid content fork" created to make a point. There is no new content here, except a fork. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with all that is stated by History2007. This article was created as a method for a user to create an article in their own image instead of using existing article. This flies in the very idea of working within consensus. On Mary (mother of Jesus) page one of the suggestions was to change the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page to this name. This amounts to going around a discussion happening on that page and "parking" an article in its place.Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was created in line with other "view" articles, such as Protestant views on Mary. I find it odd for History2007 to argue that this article was created to meet an editor's personal agenda when History2007 created a fork article on Mary (mother of Jesus) with his Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) article. History2007 argued that his article should be kept because somehow the Catholic Mary was different than the Christian Mary. He merely wants this article deleted so in case he loses the deletion discussion of his article, his fork can then become this article, rather than it be merged into the main Mary article. History2007 can't have it both ways, he can't say "mine should be kept, but just in case, this needs to be deleted so I have someplace to put mine." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting perspective, yet incorrect both in fact and logic. The article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) was created by another editor on May 14, 2008 and not myself. Protestant views on Mary was also created in May 2008, by yet another editor. The two articles have existed in parallel for long as the Catholic and Protestant views on Mary. History2007 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misread something somewhere, I thought I saw you say it was your article or you created it. Hunh, weird. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Catholic" Mary and "Christian" Mary are the same Mary. Firstly, because Mary was one person, and secondly, because Catholicism is part of Christianity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should agree that the title Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is inappropriate, as it implies an identity separate from that covered in the main article (and of greater spiritual import). ―cobaltcigs 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do not accuse editors of things that are not true, you were making assumptions about his edits. As History2007 has stated, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) has been around for a long time. Malke created this page after it was agreed that BVM (RC) would NOT be merged with Mary (Mother of Jesus). This page is basically copying BMV (RC) and should be deleted. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- The article Mary (mother of Jesus) indicates that there are no less than three "main" articles relating to the Catholic view of Mary. Her importance in the Catholic version of Christianity indicates that a sub-article will be appropriate, but surely we do not need THREE: one should be enough. This does not offend against WP:POV, because it is about a widely held POV not merely expressing a POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I just ask which articles are you proposing to merge? Marauder40 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that Malke2010 has twice deleted the merge flags regarding the article. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally, merge discussions are not proposed separately during AfDs, as merge is a valid conclusion of an AfD. Having two separate discussions running at the same time to determine the fate of one article is a bit irregular and is likely to split participants. I would imagine it would be better to focus conversation here, since "merge" is a valid (and not uncommon) outcome of AfD. (I also notice that some people at the "merge" discussion have voted for deletion here; I just want to make sure that everyone remembers that for copyright reasons content that is merged must be properly attributed; if the contributors are not specifically and properly named when content is copied, the source articles must be and cannot then be deleted. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general thought by people that voted in both is outright deletion is better, but giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that there might be something useful in the new page. At least a couple editors see little to no value in the current article thus a delete is better, thus eliminating any copyright issues. Much better then one editors solution proposed on the Mary (mother of Jesus) page for merge of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and this page. Marauder40 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better, then, to close the later discussion and to indicate here when the opinion is "delete or, if not, merge". This will be closed by an administrator, of course, and it will be very helpful to the admin judging consensus if significant conversations about the matter are held in one place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no problem closing the merge but I figure it best left to History2007 to close it since he started it.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he will consider it. If the article closes as keep and significant concerns remain, a "merge" discussion would probably be useful. The separate discussion right now will probably just complicate the closure for whatever admin winds up with it. In any event, it should not be merged while this AfD is open; since the AfD may close for "delete" and since AfDs can also close for "merge", there doesn't seem any advantage that would necessitate the simultaneous discussions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Moonriddengirl, Maraurder seems to have two 'votes' here, it's either merge or delete, he can't have both, correct?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete and merge still if proper attribution is supplied, as I mentioned above. However, most admins read a "merge and delete" argument as "keep and merge". See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this page I have one vote, it is delete. On a separately started vote on a separate page I voted to Merge in that vote where there are only two options Merge or Don't Merge but I explicitly state that I prefer delete. That does not equal two votes and it doesn't equal keep and merge. Marauder40 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear as keep/merge. Perhaps you should clarify that and/or redact one them.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the few copied paragraphs within this article are generating a new variation of much ado about nothing. Given that this article is by and large "free of new content", in the end there is so little to delete or merge, either way it is no big deal. But its fate is pretty set, I think: just look at the content. There is nothing new there, beyond a simple summary of Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church anyway. That was why I suggested a re-export back there. Now as a matter of interest MRG, is there a Wikipedia policy that states that my merge flag can be deleted by another editor twice at will, regardless of looking like an edit war? If so, please point me to the policy. And as here: Marauder also complained that Malke deletes tags at will, yet places lots of tags all over the place. So as her mentor you should point out that she does not enjoy "special tag privileges". So for that matter, I would prefer to keep the merge discussion open and the tags restored. Anyway, regardless of whether this article will merge or delete, the "special tag privileges" issue needs to be clarified. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke should not be removing the tags, but that is unrelated to this discussion, which is about the fate of the article. It seems to me that having two separate discussions about it is piling on a bit of extra "ado". It seems to be generated heat without supplying any additional light. I will seek an uninvolved administrator to determine whether a secondary discussion of the fate of an article is appropriate, since I believe that this fragmentation is unhelpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I requested from Hersfold to look at it a while ago, but he has not had a chance probably. Anyway, regardless of all else the "special tag privileges" issue should be discussed. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You requested Hersfold to look at the tag removal, not whether a redundant debate on the fate of an article is appropriate. That's a different question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, either way. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete So far I don't see a good reason for this article's existence. There is a long-standing article (currently named "Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)") that covers distinctive Catholic beliefs and devotional practice to do with the Virgin Mary more comprehensively than this article, which seems to add nothing. Vote changed to Delete after seeing attempts to replace links to BVM(RC) with this article, which therefore seems to be a POV FORK. Xandar 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of confusion here about this article and the reason it was started. This article was created as a result of a discussion which attempted to resolve the problem of the POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). The original discussion centered on merging that article with Mary (mother of Jesus). This all began around September 24 or so. Today is October 10th.

Recently, I noticed that the BVM RC article was just a POV content fork and attempted to edit there, but History2007 wouldn't allow it. I put tags on the article to alert other editors and met with resistance. I then suggested a merger with Mary (mother of Jesus) here: [9], but apparently the editors over there don't want all that content about saints, etc, (BVM RC duplicates the content of 14 other articles), and so they were against it.

I then offered a compromise solution here: [10]

As a result of that discussion, I started the article Catholic views on Mary thinking that things would finally start going forward. This is why I only cut and pasted a few items from other articles which Moonriddengirl pointed out needed to be attributed so she helped me with that. There was no hidden agenda, as Xandar suggests, and this has clearly not been undertaken without discussion, to the point of exhaustion, etc.

The history of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) begins with History2007 when he forked it from Blessed Virgin Mary over objections there, and he admits it was a "political move," as he didn't want to have the interference of the edit/revert/edit cycle. See here: [11]

And at the start of this POV content fork, Ambrosius007, admitted the direction of the article was all about 'veneration.' [12]

Over time, other editors have questioned all of this and been rebuffed.

The title Catholic views on Mary was suggested in order to establish neutral POV along the lines of other faiths such Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc. Merging Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into Catholic views on Mary will give it a new title and open it up to new editors so that the POV content fork on veneration can be eliminated and editors will once again be allowed to contribute to this important Catholic topic.

As far as the current content on Catholic views on Mary, I am happy to rewrite it and provide original content so that it isn't a duplication, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this summary of what has happened laking. I will let History2007 address the earlier in history parts, but just the stating of "I noticed that the BVM RC article was just a POV content fork and attempted to edit there, but History2007 wouldn't allow it." or "editors will once again be allowed to contribute to this important Catholic topic." Shows how biased this summary is. Malke 2010 has made a total of 4 edits to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page that didn't involve just putting 4 tags on the article. No other editor has been reverted (besides vandalism.) I personally reverted one of her edits because the edit did not match the cite and the cite wasn't changed. This does not sound like "History2007 wouldn't allow it." Other parts talk about creating this based "As a result of that discussion," on the compromise solution and things like that. Making it sound like this discussion was going on for a long time. One editor proposed something similar to that and that night this article was created by copying three articles and making minor changes so that it didn't appear to be an exact cut and paste. Marauder40 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my friend, I am speechless here, in the face of the reasoning provided in the dissertation above. Let me just say that Malke, Mr Liptak and myself must have learned logic in different schools, and leave it there. I see no logic in the account provided above and I think as a long time editor on these issues Xandar (not XandarLiptak) provided an accurate account. He had no axe to grind here and was factual. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll have a look later today. In the meantime, let's keep both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind, shall we? I see this AFD getting awful contentious awful quick, if we're not careful. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understood this article was created per discussions elsewhere, that all the subarticles on Mary should be in the form of "Denomination views on Mary", such as Protestant views on Mary. Since they are articles specifically meant to tell a position, that position should be clearly stated int eh title, and all articles should be similarly named for uniformity and to prevent the notion any religious denomination seems to have preference. See, when the Protestants need an article titled Protestant views on Mary, but the Catholics get the title Blessed Virgin Mary to themselves, it gives the appearance that the Catholics are right and he Protestants and others have a view on that truth, implying a wrong or flawed view. We need to avoid that. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that all subarticles on Mary having any format. Of course a discussion was started about possibly renaming of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page to be Catholic view on Mary or Roman Catholic view on Mary, etc. That discussion was circumvented by the creation of this page. Right now this page is camped here and would prevent the renaming of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) to this location. Right now this page is little more then a copy of three pages and should be removed.Marauder40 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was circumvented by this AfD. The POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) can easily be merged into Catholic views on Mary as was intended.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since Catholic views on Mary is a new article on an important topic, and since it can be fixed with normal editing, it is not a candidate for deletion. The nominator never participated in any prior discussions, nor did he contact me to ask about the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of an article is not required to do any of the things that you listed. This AFD is exactly what is supposed to happen. The problem is you consider Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) to be a fork. This is in effect the fork. Merging BVM (RC) into this page is the secular equivilent of someone creating a page called "US Citizen views of George Washington", creating a page by copying a page about his home and 2 other minor pages and asking someone to merge the main George Washington page into it. As I said before this is a person wanting to create a page in their own image.Marauder40 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random section break

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a comment on the discussion above, it was interesting that the only arguments for "keeping this page" provided by the two users were in terms of criticisms of the long existing page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), and not in terms of the merits of this page itself. So in effect, this page has had no arguments presented for its own merits of existence, except the criticism of the long standing page. On the talk page, this page was called (their term, not mine) a possible stalking horse by another user, as a way around the failing merge attempt here. Overall, I see no merits in this page itself, given that it is a hurried text copy and paste from Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia deserves better than this. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Sorry that I don't have time to check out the articles. However it's clear to me that Mary as a part of the Catholic religion, and also in different degrees in other Christian churches, is clearly a notable topic. The actual person of the mother of Jesus should have her own article. Borock (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "views" (which I suspect really means "differences of opinion") about Jesus' mother that is the main point. But the elevation of Mary to be a sort of personification of God's feminine side by the Christian religion, especially Roman Catholics. Borock (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mary (mother of Jesus) as a multi-perspective article and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (with the obvious Catholic emphasis) have existed for years. As has Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be a much simpler and more easily navigated by readers if there was a uniform format. So if we do soemthing like...

Mary (mother of Jesus) (I still think this should be renamed simply Mary)

Anglican views on Mary
Catholic views on Mary
Orthodox views on Mary
Protestant views on Mary

...it would allow readers to more easily understand what is a main article and what is a subarticle. Otherwise we have three articles competing for dominance. We even have one trying to be renamed Virgin Mary to compete against the main Mary (mother of Jesus) article. While thee is no requirement of format, there also is no requirement we do not format subarticle. In this instance, with so many denominations and so much that can fit in subarticles, formatting would make it easy for readers and editors alike. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a comment on "name", not on content. Naming is another issue, the AFD was not based on naming, but the AFD nominator stated that this page is a fork and that this page "was created to make a point". There seems to be no agreement as to why this page was created.

You seem to say it was created "as a method for doing a rename".
The AFD nominator said that was created to "make a point".
Another user said that it may be a stalking horse for a this failing merger.

So "what is the purpose for this page after all"? Is the purpose to provide a new name for an existing page as you suggest? If so, why not suggest a rename for the other page, with a discussion that has been ongoing here? I see no logical explanations here (except for providing criticisms of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)) as to why this page is needed at all, or what merits it has. I see no merits in this page. History2007 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought I should finally add my two cents as this back and forth has been something I've been watching from afar and feel is a no-brainer. This article should be deleted because its clearly a content fork. There was a lengthy merger discussion at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)#Merge proposal where the overwhelming number of people didn't want the page merged. Then the user who wanted the page merged, after learning of the unsuccessful result, started a new page and began writing an article on the same exact subject matter anyway. Clearly this had the effect of evading the consensus established at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)#Merge proposal. This is not the way to do things. And it should not be tolerated despite the merits for or against having such an article. The article should be deleted and a new discussion at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus) can be started by the user regarding renaming the article "Catholic views on Mary". If consensus can be established there regarding this renaming then I don't see any problem with recreating the article "Catholic views on Mary". I'm not dismissing the fact that there are likely very good arguments that can be made for such a renaming, but it has to be done in accordance with wikipedia policy and not via these strong-arming tactics. Also, explanation should be provided there regarding whether the article "Catholic views on Mary" would be identical to "Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church".Chhe (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a reminder. There is a compromise discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus) that clearly suggests that the name of the BMV RC be changed to Catholic views on Mary. That is why this article was created. As it is now, Catholic views on Mary is easily filled with relevant, new content on an important Catholic topic. At some point in the future, BVM RC could still be merged into it, but for now, the article can easily be filled with content on this important Catholic topic. This is why I nominated it for rescue. It can be solved with simple editing, especially as this is a new article and should be given a chance. Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church is a limited article and doesn't fully address views of the laity, etc., as this article will. Afterall, it's called "Catholic views," which doesn't have to mean the Catholic Church hierarchy. BMV RC is a POV content fork that focuses exclusively on non-Catholic views of veneration.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean: Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Compromise_suggestion, then it is easy to see that no clear conclusion regarding naming was reached there. And a rename of article "A" can not be discussed within article "B", as I said there. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 23:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would be a fine topical article rooted in Mary (mother of Jesus). 'Cept there is already Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). So Catholic views on Mary (good title) actually is a POV fork of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (POV-laden title, but a good article). So where does that leave us? Dunno. I suppose this is the one that needs to be merged away. But there needs to be some condensation via merger, because the content fork is a real thing here. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two comments seem to suggest that the general feeling that this page is a fork is getting endorsed. I should, perhaps, also point out that the discussion Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)#Name_of_this_article has been taking place. As stated there, I think page titles with parentheses do not work that well, and titles such as "Roman Catholic views on Mary" or "Mary in Catholicism" have been suggested for that page. So that naming discussion will proceed and a new title for that page will eventualy emerge via consensus. History2007 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Carrite, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork created by History2007 and a now abandoned account called Ambrosius007. The discussion to change the title to Catholic views on Mary is on the Mary (mother of Jesus) talk page. There is no consensus to do anything at this time and I am going to rewrite the article Catholic views on Mary so that there is new content with neutral POV. Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) can easily be merged into it, as that article is only about one topic, veneration, and it is all POV. There are many more aspects of Mary in the Catholic faith that have not been addressed, and Catholic views on Mary will fit in nicely with other faith based articles on Mary such as Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chhe said it very well Malke2010, namely that your strategy has "the effect of evading the consensus established at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)#Merge proposal. This is not the way to do things. And it should not be tolerated." I think Chhe said it very well. And it would be advisable to pay respect to WP:Point, the issue of trying to "make a point" having been addressed by both Marauder and Mike Nutley in the comments here. Please show respect for the views expressed by the several other users here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged for rescue and that process should be allowed to proceed.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for other users to comment, given that we may go around in circles on the tag issue - since you added the tag yourself. I said what I had to say. History2007 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is the result of a compromise solution that began as a merger proposal. The discussion was to merge the POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into Mary (mother of Jesus). Editors on the Mary page didn't want BVM RC, which is overlong as it lifts material from 14 different articles on Mary. A compromise solution was offered that the BMV RC be renamed. Suggestions favored this article title. I created the article with the idea that the rename would move forward, and therefore only put in bits of other articles to keep it open. However, this article was then precipitously nominated for deletion. Even if BMV RC is not renamed, this title is relevant on Wikipedia as there are no articles about how Catholic views on Mary have changed through the ages and especially the post Vatican II Catholic views on Mary. The article simply needs work in that direction, which I've already started on. The article is on an important Catholic topic and should not be deleted, especially as it's just begun and needs a chance to be worked into a full article. I've seen articles begun with just one sentence. There's no need for this deletion. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note all the copied material has been removed and replaced with new, original content with appropriate sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR I do not see a delete discussion here. I see a wide-ranging bickering over 1) what the article(s) should be titled, 2) where and 3) how RC-specific belief should be expressed. This should really not be at AfD, as far as I can tell. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with you, Jclemens. I've just changed the content of the article so any question of it being a content fork is now moot. The AfD should be closed to keep.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is a delete discussion and not a rename discussion is because this article was created in one night by copying 3 other articles instead of working within consensus to rename an existing in place already existing article. That is why this is a delete discussion. Once this article is deleted the rename discussion can resume. Compare this article to the existing Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page and you will understand. Marauder40 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - forking the content from the other articles made this too complicated. Work with what we have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content is no longer a fork. I've just changed the content and direction of the article. There is no need to delete it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.4: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Although I'm aware of the other wiki articles covering similar thoughts I would like to see editors to give this new article a chance by improving it, no matter which way they "voted". If in two to four weeks maximum there is no sign of improvement that warrants this article it can be AFD'd again with a clear consensus for or against it (I'll bet). The current article is far from the initial one but needs plenty of work of course as it is not much more than a stub right now but working on it might make the difference. I've compared the English and German wiki-articles regarding this and came to the conclusion that while the German one's are more narrow and have therefore less articles which cover Maria and there-like, we on the other hand have plenty of articles about that topic that might confuse more than serve our readers who are not familiar with it.TMCk (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 10/19/2010 The content of Catholic views on Mary has been changed and is no longer using material from other articles. It is all new and original. In addition, per WP:SK 2.4: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". The article is not eligible for deletion. The new discussion begins further down, at the "relist" mark. (Please do not move these comments. They are placed here to alert editors to the change in status of the article. These comments are intended to be here.)Malke 2010 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2.4 is intended for content disputes where the article has been in place for awhile and someone nominates it. It is not for newly created content forks. New comment sections are supposed to be placed in date order. AfD guidelines specifically talks about moving comments around and leaving things in order for following the flow of the conversations. Placing your comments first gives the impression that you think your comments are more important then those that came before you. What would stop every new editor from placing their comments at the top. If you have new comments you either need to add them to one of your four existing sections (vote and other comment sections) or add them to the end. By the way according to AfD guidelines you are supposed to indicate in your votes/comments that you are the author of the article for full disclosure. Marauder40 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for AfD by an editor, now blocked for disruption on another page, who didn't even participate in the discussions, and simply wanted to end a content dispute by deletion.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening in other places doesn't matter on this page as you like to bring up in regards to yourself. He is not required to particpate in the discussion. Again you attribute things to other editors, address the issue not the editors.Marauder40 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments moved down to keep clear the flow of conversation here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Whoa this is weird doing this again, but more to the point, have to also mention WP:SK 2.4 due to it's relevence to the current situation. Also the fact that this page is still undergoing rapid editorial changes means that the dispute cannot be completed, not untill 'all the cards are laid'; in other words, untill this article has settled down and it is clear how it will look, you cannot argue that it needs to be deleted as it is still developing and potentially could gain much more information and expansions. I must also note that even when this article has been finished, merging might be a better resolution to come to as it means that all important information to the subject is kept for the public to view. --'The Ninjalemming' 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My last comment might be a bit late, but make of it what you will, I have shown my support. 'The Ninjalemming' 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, frankly on the basis that this is the ideal title (give or take the word “Roman”) for an article about a clearly noteworthy subject. If this article does not accurately describe how the Roman Catholic church feels about Mary, please revise it until it does. ―cobaltcigs 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Rescue Ok, I will fix/revise it, as you suggested, but please be sure to send a generous wire transfer. History2007 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Referring to my "keep for now vote" above I suggest closing this as a "no consensus" for now and let's watch this article's development for some time. There is no BLP or other issue that would call for an immediate deletion. So again, let's see what we can make out of it and not who started it and how it came to this article. That's irrelevant and the title itself should be kept anyways and preferable not as a redirect.TMCk (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless comment (inc. responses) removed for privacy reasons since editor was aware of this but chose not to respond while being online and editing today. Also gave the editor a notice at their talkpage [13].TMCk (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I am somewhat new to this discussion, but glancing at how many articles deal with this topic, some presenting views from different religious traditions and others seemingly redundant, this work in progress should be kept until such a time as the content settles in the other articles, at which point a merge (or replacement) and redirect would seem appropriate. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments removed. Please see above and editsumary.TMCk (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current article is essentially a POV fork. Since the articles about Mary are generally primarily about the Catholic view, this one is not appropriate. There is no additional material here. It would be better to devote the effort to expanding the other articles, as there is an immense amount of possible sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a content fork. I deleted all material from other articles. This article will be about the progressive and conservative views of Catholics. There are no Wikipedia articles that address that. All the Mariology articles are redundant articles about veneration and art and consecration, etc. This article will not have any of that. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he’s saying that while the status quo reflects systemic bias, we should embrace it and continue presenting the content-dominant view without appropriate disclaimer. Myself I’m quite looking forward to Atheist views of Mary, and only wish I had been the first to act. ―cobaltcigs 05:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. But there won't be any of the duplication here that is found in all the Mariology articles that have been forked into Catholic Mariology, Marilogy in Catholicism, etc., and other such content forks.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Roman Catholic Mariology, and Catholic views on Mary into one article. The main issue seems to be that a number of editors haven't managed to work together productively and are now writing content forks of essentially the same notable topic. Instead of deleting just one of these, a community discussion process should examine how to reconcile them. Sandstein 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic views on Mary was meant to become the main title with the POV content fork, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) merged into it. That was the discussion and would have proceeded but for this AfD. However, I think at this point, with all the disruption this AfD has caused, nobody wants that anymore either. Catholic views on Mary will now be a comparison of the modern views on Mary, something none of the articles currently addresse. There's no point in more Blessed Virgin Mary stuff on Wikipedia. All of the Mariology articles would best be merged and edited down to the salient points, etc. I'd prefer if Catholic views on Mary could be kept as it will now become the conservative and progressive views of Mary which is a very important topic in Catholicism and has not been addressed on Wikipedia. As for the issue with the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), that is now a separate issue the regular editors there need to address. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 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. The consensus of the policy-based parts of the discussion is that while the word itself has been used in various ways for over a century, it has no consistent or firm meaning, and this article in particular is WP:NOR attempting to create a new concept rather than document an existing/movement. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Societism

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

Article has been tagged as problematic for more than a year. Appears to be an attempt to promote a neologism. Primarily written by someone with a possible COI. Many unreferenced statements. I do not think a valid article can be written. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Interesting challenge. It appears that a valid article already has been written. I'm not a philosopher and I don't play one on TV, but it appears that "societism" is the flipside of the "individualism" coin. It's DEFINED IN WIKTIONARY, which might not be impressive in "reliable sources" terms but does get you to the essence of the thing pretty effectively, I think. The term is definitely out there, as exemplified by the book Societism: The Future Government of the United States of America. It's not a neologism, it was a concept discussed as early as 1914 in the work of Georges Palante as may be seen in THIS LINK COURTESY OF MARXISTS.ORG. Where is this challenge coming from? The concept seems a slam-dunk speedy keep from just a quick spin around the Google neighborhood... —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
- It was defined in Wiktionary by Freedom2Choose (talk · contribs) and this article here was in major part written by Freedom2choose (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book on Societism was self-published by the author and, as the worldcat link provided shows, held by one library. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so let's say the book is out as an obscure self-publication. Here we have AN ABSTRACT TO A JOURNAL ARTICLE in Organizational Studies, which reads: "This essay introduces a new form of social ontology and sketches its bearings on the analysis of organizations. The essay begins by contrasting the two social ontological camps — individualism and societism — into which social theory has been divided since its inception." Thus "societism" is again depicted as the flip-side of "individualism" as a fundamental term. Bottom line for me is this: the term seems to be clearly notable in Wikipedia terms and encyclopedia-worthy in the abstract. If there are COI or Original Essay problems with this article, the place for correction of same is not AfD, but via the normal editing process using discussion on the talk page as necessary. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
    - That abstract does prove that some people use the word "societism" and that one usage contrasts it with "individualism." That might be enough for the Wiktionary, although an entry there would have to take account of other usages, as well (e.g., contrasting it with "statism"). It is not clear from the abstract, however, that is uses "societism" in the same way as it is defined in the article. The Wikipedia article in question makes it into a creed about the proper relationship between the individual and society; it has nothing to do with ontology. The article, however, addresses the question of the proper unit of analysis regarding social theory (and sets up this dichotomy as warring straw men against which the author defines his own alternative). Again, the question isn't whether that series of letters has ever been used as a word in print, but whether there is a core, unified concept that meets the notability requirements. And the evidence presented for that has been original research. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This fresh article entitled, "Individualism and "Societism" from a Vassar College commencement speech given in 1896 and subsequently published in the Vassar Miscellany satisfies the notability requirement by adding further direct historical credibility to this philosophy. This newspaper has been continuously published by its students since 1866. I have to imagine a few hundred students and parents were exposed to the concept then. Lest we forget! Freedom2choose (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is an essay. While the word has been used before, it does not have a precise meaning. The article attempts to give it that meaning. A search of Google scholar shows it used as an alternative to individualism, statism, etc; sometimes it relates to something in Durkheim's thought, sometimes not. The article as written is clearly intended to lend credibility to a particular political movement. I don't know how this article differs from communitarianism. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 05:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word is not a neologism - the OED has citations back to the 19th century. FWIW, that source identifies the concept with societarianism. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My use of the term 'neologism' didn't capture precisely what I meant. That the word has existed is of course not in dispute. It is as RJC put it above: a self-published book and a COI editor promoting a particular view as if it is a broad school of thought is the problem. The word seems to be not worthy of an independent entry, per WP:NOT#DICT.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles first reference "Individualism and Societism" written in 1896 introduces the philosophy clearly. I believe this historical school of thought is returning with momentum and needs to be preserved. The current Tea Party movement and Campaign for Liberty movement are two clear examples of Societism as non partisan individuals are working together to reclaim their government and their freedoms. Many more want to be involved but haven’t yet found that term or group they are comfortable associating with. It’s ironic that so many dictionaries have removed “Societism” from their pages – my guess is it’s been for political reasons, but who knows. Obviously the article is not perfect. Perhaps others with a deeper understanding of history, philology and the use of Wikipedia can step forward and add the needed clarification and/or references. Freedom2choose (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your views here sound plausible... as original research. I recommend that you write up your views in a comprehensive essay and try to get it published in a reliable source. Barring that, Wikipedia is not the place to speculate on the intellectual connections between a contemporary political movement and an article in a theological journal more than 100 years old.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – This was actually done more recently (2003) in an essay by Theodore R. Schatzki, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Kentucky whose thesis is called, "A New Societist Social Ontology" (fee for full text required). He has other recent essays on this subject as well. Obviously the philosophy of Societism continues to evolve but has not died, it just keeps getting removed by the powers in place – precisely what Arpad Korn was addressing in his book on Societism (1979) mentioned above. I am very pleased that Wikipedia uses its independent voting system and open forum that allows these discussions to take place before potentially permanent deletions.Freedom2choose (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: this is the same author as the journal article mentioned by Carrite above; I'm not sure that the fact that this person has published more than one article that uses the word in a way different from the article's topic shows that the article's topic is notable. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: Nether of these articles by Schatzki are even mentioned in the article. Freedom2choose (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has some serious OR issues. Whoever wrote this article clearly sought to "make up" his own definition of the term. All sorts of information were simply gathered and pieced together in order to give an appearance of legitimacy to the author's agenda; yet anyone vaguely familiar with philosophy and logic will notice that it is full of non sequitur fallacies. --m3taphysical (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been pondering this for a while. It struck me that the common — what's the word, antonym? — of "individualism" isn't "societism," it is "collectivism." I'm not sure how that relates to the price of tea in China, but that is one reason that the individualism v. societism pairing sounds odd to the ear. That said, it's still pretty darned clear that this is a fundamental concept from a previous century and is thus an encyclopedia-worthy topic, with correction of Original Essay concerns of the specific page to be made via the normal push and pull of the collective editing process, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase... Carrite (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - Per the above: "I believe this historical school of thought is returning with momentum and needs to be preserved." That's exactly what this article should NOT be trying to do. The historical school of thought needs to be expounded for its own sake. But the italicized type here indicates a pretty clear POV-push. NOW, I'm starting to see the concern... Bottom line for me: Concept is a KEEP, but it may well be time to break out the machetes for reediting. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - It wasn't Individualism "vs" Societism. There obviously was a brewing debate in the late 1800’s (and earlier during Durkeim’s time) between the two extremes of individualism and socialism that inspired the need for a higher calling they termed Societism. Some tried to eradicate Societism by comparing it to Socialism (and Statism, Collectivism, etc.). Others stopped referencing it. And they essentially made the term disapear. I agree the article needs help (to eliminate the POV issue, etc...) through the collective editing process. Lets make it more objective and accurate and not simply be deleted from history again. (Freedom2choose) (talk)15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation - In light of the above I've revisited the article anticipating how one might wield the axe to eliminate the original essay writing and current-politics advocacy while expounding upon the original concept. Bottom line: one can't. Although I really hate having to say this, I now think blowing the mother up is the best approach and have stricken my previous KEEP recommendation. However, I still remain convinced that "societism" is a fundamental concept from an earlier era which could well be the subject of encyclopedic coverage if done correctly, just as other core concepts such as "individualism" and "collectivism" can be successfully treated. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
- Comment - I made an error with the collectivism reference. I was thinking communes and that part didn't make sense - sorry. Still, this could have easily been correction under the normal re-editing without the blowup. Freedom2choose (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentComments from the very first person who started this article.
  Understanding that the very thought of the concept of societism (especially "God forbid" applied societism in modern culture) might gore some folks oxes and / or threaten sacred cows, I began this article with many modern references. I too am not an encyclopedian nor a sociologist, but thought that Wikipedia would be the perfect venue for the exposition of an oft neglected but most pertinent societal concept even touching Wikipedias' own own core raison d’être. Solely adversarial and limited intellectualized discussion is of very limited efficacy if ego issues are always going to get tied up in things. That is also the very point of this article itself. "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive," Albert Einstein
  The charges of original and / or non-published research are completely specious, I have attempted in my own limited way as a practical systems engineer to collect in encyclopedic fashion modern and post-modern discussions of the topic. Merging or cross linking the related political concept of Communitarianism with the broader social phenomena of Societism as applied to political science might benefit that part of this article. In so far, I agree with that comment.
  This is not a new idea. The issue that it is currently re-emerging in political, religious, philosophical and social information science frameworks does not diminish it's societal scientific value in any way. Besides the many references already cited from day one, at the very inception of this article, the concepts of applied societism have also been continually discussed since the end of the 19th century in the following additional references to be cited as the work progresses. 1911-1914-1930-1949-1950-1964-1990-1996-2003-2006
  That is, if it is to be possibly allowed to continue to progress and is not deleted in it's infancy.
  - History of economic thought By Lewis Henry Haney - 1911 books.google.com
  - The Social Point of View in Economics The Quarterly Journal of Economics © 1914 The MIT Press. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1883624
  - The Place of Definition in Religious Experience The Journal of Philosophy Vol. XXVII, No. 21 OCtober 9, 1930 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2015925
  - The Synthesis of Idealism and Realism - CHARLES HARTSHORNE DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1949.tb00142.x Theoria - Volume 15, Issue 1-3, pages 90–107, April 1949 Article first published online: 11 FEB 2008
  - Toward a Faith for Modern Man - R. G. Wilburn # Oxford Journals # Humanities # Jnl of the American Academy of Religion # VolumeXVIII, Issue1 # Pp. 34-35 J Am Acad Relig (1950) XVIII (1): 34-35. doi: 10.1093/jaarel/XVIII.1.34 http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XVIII/1/34.extract
  - Philosophies of Hartshorne and Chardin: Two Sides of The Same Coin? David B. Richardson The Southern Journal of Philosophy Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 107–115, Fall 1964 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1964.tb01473.x/abstract Article first published online: 26 MAR 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.1964.tb01473.x 1964 The University of Memphis
  - Tocqueville's Nationalism T Todorov - History and Anthropology, 1990 - informaworld.com http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921747581
  - Social Constructivism - JIŘÍ KABELE Sociologický časopis, 1996, Vol. 32 (No. 3: 317-337) [PDF] from cas.czJ KABELE - sreview.soc.cas.cz http://sreview.soc.cas.cz/uploads/a8d4b9796abd2eacee415e34c9d59d6b9d78aa21_298_317KABEL.pdf
  - On Durkheim's Religion and Simmel's" Religiosity": A Review Essay AJ Treviño - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1998 - JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/pss/1388037
  - Non-State Actors in Global Governance - A Power Analysis Bas Arts Political Sciences of the Environment University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Paper to be presented at the 2003 ECPR Joint Sessions, Workshop 11: The Governance of Global Issues - Effectiveness, Accountability, and Constitutionalization. Edinburgh, Scotland, March 28 – April 2, 2003
  - ELEMENTS OF A SEMIOTIC THEORY OF RELIGION - Tim Murphy Theory in the Study of Religion, 2003 - ingentaconnect.com http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/mtsr/2003/00000015/00000001/art00003
  - Ziya Gökalp’s political sociology - Ensar Yilmaz International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 2(3), pp. 029-033, March 2010 Available online www.academicjournals.org/ijsa^{[predatory publisher]} ISSN 2006- 988x © 2010 Academic Journals www.academicjournals.org/ijsa/PDF/pdf2010/March/Yilmaz.pdf^{[predatory publisher]}
- Here is the original research on this topic, as yet emerging -
  - Innovation-as-Practice: Examining the Relationship between Leaders' Espoused and Enacted Innovation, and Innovation Outcomes and Firm Performance [PDF] from uwo.caMG Apaydin, O Branzei, G Rowe, S Thornhill - ivey.uwo.ca http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/phd/IveyPhDStudents/AreaGroups/thesismaterial/ApaydinThesisProposal.pdf
- Thank You for your time. Steve Frahm - sfrahm1 - formally user sfrahm Sfrahm1 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fully agree with Carrite. This big sophism is beyond repair. --m3taphysical (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why?
<sarcasm> OMG! Yes, get rid of it! It has with not only to do with religion and politics, but philosophy and economics too. </sarcasm>
Who has taken the time to read all the references provided? Anybody? Where are the comprehensive intelligent arguments? Here, I'll give it a shot now myself. Please pardon my tongue placed firmly in my cheek whilst I do so.
Problematic -> For whom? Adherents of the so called "Third Way," excuse for socialist corporatism (read big political money corporate fascism astroturfed by Hegelian dialectical synthesis) that does not admit to any sane possible alternatives? I should certainly hope so.
Big sophism -> name calling no analysis
Beyond repair -> more name calling
One of the 29 references is "self-published"! -> "Error. Flaw. Imperfection. Must sterilize." "Search out. Identify. Sterilize imperfections." "Our purpose is clear. Sterilize imperfections. Sterilize imperfections. Nomad. Sterilize. Sterilize." "I am Nomad. I am perfect. That which is imperfect must be sterilized." "I shall sterilize. You must sterilize in case of error? Error is inconsistent with my prime functions. Sterilization is correction. Everything that is in error must be sterilized. There are no exceptions." "Everything that is in error must be sterilized. There are no exceptions."
The word does not have a precise meaning -> Like any other modern word its' meaning in common use has developed over time. Like say over the past 120 years or so give or take.
SOCIETISM: \ So-ci’e-tism (-tiz’m), N. [Societ +ISM]. [Fr. Association or tendency to associate, in a society or societies.] Webster, New International Dictionary 2nd Ed., (1951)
So’cietism. {f. SOCIET-Y + -ISM} Combination in a society or societies.
1894 Daily News 26 Dec. 3/6 It was a real grievance which hatched secret societism in Ireland. 1896 Bibliotheca Sacra July 545 As the perversion of individualism is anarchism, so would the perversion of societism appear to be socialism or collectivism. Source: Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed., Vol XV, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1989
How this article differs from communitarianism -> That only refers to the political aspect, that I can see in the references I have read so far. Ignoring all of the other published religious, philosophical, social scientific and economic aspects.
Full of non-sequitur fallacies -> Pointless slash, cut and burn editing will certainly help achieve that. By all means. "Must ... sterilize. Sterilize ..."
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. -> I was working on improving it. I sure could use a bit more help with it and a bit less pointless complaining and depressing calls for deletion.
Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. -> Yep, I can see that. I'm not blind. Editing out bit by bit, check the progress so far in the history section to see if I am heading in the right direction.
It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. -> I started the article from day one with many third-party references. It has 29 references so far, I am working on another dozen or so more as we yet speak. Google Scholar has dozens more supporting nearly every one of the statements made to date as far as I can see.
Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. -> Yes, I agree. I keep editing them out as I am going along. Lets all at least be a bit more specific, so that this problem may more easily be rectified.
Its neutrality is disputed. -> One of the folks editing it may have apparent COI issues. What's the apparent COI with? A non-profit political agenda that is fighting post-modern corporatism driven by unlimited political funding. OK, big whoopee. So, lets all get to work and quit just complaining and nit picking and do something about it. Using the very same societist principles that Wikipedia was apparently founded upon (to use the Geo. Dafermos ref. cited), to turn it into a high quality useful article. Who writes or edits an article that they know nothing about?
Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. -> I linked in from and back to Durkheim. Needs cross links for comparison to Communitarianism, Individualism, Third Way, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, but I didn't want to dig even deeper, without proper references supporting each and every comparison, with all the flack the article has been getting so far.
Is that everything? Have I sufficiently addressed every complaint to date? Can I get back to editing yet, or do I have to keep defending its' very own existence like both Israel or Palestine have to do every day? Time wasting controversy IMHO. Peer review is supposed to imply intelligent editorializing. Not just argument for its' own sake. Pick one issue, build a straw man...
Thank You for your consideration.
Sfrahm1 —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Many of the comments to these issues have been extremely valuable and refreshing. Some even passed the sniff test. But their tags remain! In Wikipedia we are embraced with the power to lead by example. Not to be the bully. But working collaboratively to correct and refine as the role models Wikipedia admires and deserves. Jimbo was trying by taking the lead civilly to hack out the worst of the unsubstantiated claims and has asked for help to doing this accurately. Your expertise is valuable - so start by correcting a part that most concerns you. In a year from now, we can all be proud to have shared in a young child’s success that wasn’t meant to survive. Freedom2choose (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one. The article in its current state is poor. There's too much original research and it reads like an essay. But the depth of sourcing suggests that the topic itself is a valid one. So how about we incubate it for a while? If people really care about writing a decent article on the topic, they would have the chance to and could use this as a basis without leaving it in mainspace. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By incubate, do you mean userify? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you not heard of the Wikipedia:Article incubator? Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I hadn't. It looks better than userification. I guess the problem would be identifying what part of the current article would be preserved in the incubator, since it sounds like it is not a place to shove sub-standard content. Some of the participants in this discussion think an article could be written on this term, but that this article is hopeless. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still a non-notable neologism; all the sources show is that various people have (re-)created this neologism at various times, with no set meaning and no body of consistent discussion of any of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What an astonishingly over-the-top reaction to a simple discussion of a term, for which the author cites various valid references. What isn't clear from the article is that societism as a self-conscious social movement is a relatively new--four or five years--phenomenon, and therefore the generally accepted meaning of societism is not yet established. Let this historical perspective on the use of the term, societism, stand. I'll try to make some changes to clarify the distinction between the background of the term itself, and the intended meaning and goals for societism as a modern social movement that appears to be essentially "libertarian with a social conscience." I simply don't understand why anyone would dump on an innocuous presentation of a concept, for which the sources are solid and interesting. And I believe the modern idea and movement for societism as conceived by its most recent promulgator, Steven Zimberg, is legitimate and benevolent. In fact, I think the article should contain a reference to societism.org by way of clarification that societism is an older term being self-consciously restored to an "individualism in community" meaning... that may, believe it or not, be salutary. Why on earth would you want to kill discussion or inclusion of such a term (or a description of a political-economic ideology) in a compendium of knowledge?
Also neologism means a newly coined word or expression. Obviously, the word societism is not newly coined. Its use goes back to the 19th century, and its been used in many ways, some not along the lines of what its current supporters would define it as. If you don't like its current meaning or where someone wants to go with a social movement in its name, then that's a different issue; Wikipedia is supposed to be about what actually exists--or exists with some evidence of longevity--and is important, not whether someone likes it. I don't like communism and it is certainly a neologism on a scale of geologic time; and it has likewise proven to be ephemeral on such a scale of time. But it's important; it's knowledge to have the facts of what supporters of communism have thought, what they have done, what they have said. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about knowledge, not whether a term rubs some established orthodoxy the wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwisok (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bwisok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clarify - In other words, it's a revolutionary new concept that will change the way people think (while at the same time it has existed for centuries? Yeah, right. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not revolutionary at all. The historical references in the history section are quite clear in illustrating the importance of True Individualism or Societism as a means of protecting against the threat of Socialism and we may again be facing those same crossroads. If I sound POV'ish it's because I see the trend developing Freedom2choose (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, might have some sources and may be re-created soon, in a better form. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A look at the article's sourcing to over two thousand years of various random speeches shows that it is WP:OR which has only been given the appearance of a sourced article. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps you should give the article a fresh look and you may realize it is not WP:OR.Freedom2choose (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It absolutely is OR of the worst kind. If it survives this AfD, which I think is possible but unlikely, I am going to hack it back to a stub and be very firm about keeping the OR out of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article is pretty awful, and many of the citations do not document the term or perhaps even the concept. But it is possible to write such an article. The OED gives as a 1994 reference, W. STARK & C. M. A. CLARK Hist. & Historians of Polit. Econ. II. vii. 204 "Idealism he views as generally connected with societism and optimism, materialism with individualism and pessimism." (discussing Lewis Henry Haney--a fuller quote is at in G Books. I think this is sufficient recognition that the term is specific. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That the word exists is not in question. But the mere existence of the word (which has been used in many contexts, with many meanings) does not imply that there is a particular school of thought associated with it (there was not) which was the forerunner of todays Tea Party movement (it isn't). It's just a word, and that's not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. (Though it could make a fabulous Wiktionary entry detailing all the varied uses over the years!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 October 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. Discounting the SPAs, socks, meatpuppets, etc., there is a pretty clear consensus to delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Cote (film director)

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

This is an article for a filmmaker whose notability is extremely questionable and based on very thin sources:

The only claim to notability for any of the filmmaker's movies is that one of them was "accepted into the Cannes Film Festival's Short Film Corner". The criteria for acceptance into the Short Film Corner are minimal; this is more a matter of registration than a critical evaluation.
Few of the sources provide any real content, and those that do are principally derived from self-authored blurbs -- they cannot really be considered reliable sources.
The article was authored by Nick Soroka, who worked as a unit manager on Cote's first film. The article was originally submitted under user Davecoteproductions and then as Finelineproductions. It has all the hallmarks of being a promotional biography commissioned by Dave Cote.

This filmmaker may become notable at some point, but there just do not appear to be enough sources to support it now. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See below, many sources have been added, WP:CREATIVE has been satisfied, as well as NOTABILITY.

NickSoroka (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this thing at once off the face of the Earth in deference to WP:RS, WP:N, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account, and the general sense of common humility that its creator lacks. Qworty (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More drama in your language, please. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, this guy Qworty shouldn't be on here, take a look at his profile, it's straight vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.37.68 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)— 76.64.37.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is open to all, but if you consider Qworty to be a vandal-only editor then you should report her/him as such. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources on Cote's film Windup indicate that it is a feature-length film. And by researching the Cannes Short Film Corner, it's apparent that a film may be entered that is up to 60 min. in length, which, according to mainstream film industry standards, is feature length. Also, I found that a small percentage of the Short Film Corner submissions are actually accepted, and so it is notable that the film Windup was accepted. Also, why not simply take a look at the film itself: as it is available on many distributor sites, here's one: http://www.filmannex.com/movie/film/22227/windup NickSoroka (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking at this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bryce , which was given to me as a reference early on in the webchat forum, to help me, as this is my first wikipedia entry, it could be said that Ian Bryce is notable because he worked in production on some blockbuster films, as per imdb. likewise, David Cote has worked on some big films in the production side as director; dv director; line producer, and there are sources including the same "imdb" but also more (news articles, other urls), and so it follows that this page be kept on Cote. NickSoroka (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional news source: In an article titled “Filmmaker smells success at Cannes”, it is noted that award-winning writer, Gordy Hoffman, is reviewing Cote’s next film, “Inertia”. Also noted is that Gloria Gifford, and Ron Gilbert, two well known Hollywood actors turned teachers, are supporting Cote’s film. Ron Gilbert’s company, Rogue Arts, has already agreed to world-wide Theatrical and DVD distribution of “Inertia” [1].

I have contacted the various newspapers that I have referenced for my own past writing purposes, and am being emailed original copies of several articles. The first is noted above. If need be, I can email the articles, which have been scanned and emailed to me, if I am provided an email @wikipedia that I could send them to. Several more sources should be coming to me this weekend, some related to "Windup" and Cannes, others relating to Cote's community involvements and appointments to various academic positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.205.151 (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC) NickSoroka (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to read the Gordy Hoffman review. Where is it located (web, print, etc.)? And shouldn't "Inertia" be listed on Ron Gilbert's website along with his (Gilbert's) other distribution titles? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a distribution "deal" is an agreement, in contract form, between the production company and the distributing agent. This would get listed after post-production of "Inertia", once the film is complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmaking#Distribution_and_exhibition), therefore it wouldn't be seen on the website yet.

it seems that Gordy Hoffman runs the bluecat screenwriting competition, why not email to request for the write-up? Saira de Goede —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.97.220 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not my job in a sense...I'm a volunteer who tries to help when I can and when I have the time. I don't have the time right now to e-mail Mr. Hoffman to check this reference. Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison between Dave Cote and Ian Bryce doesn't make sense. Ian Bryce has been an assistant director and producer on many unquestionably notable major motion pictures. The lack of sources in the Ian Bryce article is a serious problem and needs to be addressed, but the notability is hardly questioned. In the case of Dave Cote we lack both reliable sources and a solid claim of notability. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- how do you figure that david cote lacks reliable sources and a solid claim to notability? what is notable? "Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."[5]" And does the David Cote article satisfy this? Yes it does. NickSoroka (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the article lacks a solid claim to notability because I don't think satisfies the guidelines at WP:CREATIVE—namely, Dave Cote has not in my opinion been principally responsible for creating a notable work. The day may yet come when he has attracted enough attention that it makes sense for Wikipedia to include a biographical article on him, but I don't think we're there yet. Nick, your dedication to this is commendable and your perseverance will serve Wikipedia well, but I'm sorry that I just don't think there's enough there for an article now. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see below, WP:CREATIVE and NOTABILITY have been satisfied.

NickSoroka (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will further add that I am new to Wikipedia and creating articles, and am LEARNING. I have read a lot of mean words and resentment, when all I am doing is creating an encyclopedic entry for a Canadian Filmmaker who I believe is quite notable, having started with nothing, and ended up with much support from hollywood, Cannes, and the film community. Also, Cote has made contributions to the community, in relation to Youth services and community planning. All of these articles are from News sources, and are on their way, being emailed from the authors on their own time. It has been quite an undertaking to get through to the authors and have them go through their own archives and scan the articles and email them to me. I did my best to source via the internet, but have come against harsh criticism. I am confident that by Sunday (October 10, 2010), all issues will be resolved and that the new sources I provide will clear up any questionableness with regards to "notability" and "source". NickSoroka (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open to all, anyone and everyone can edit or post their thoughts. Sometimes people are intemperate with their comments, but you have to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The guidelines that other editors are mentioning and that might apply here are in place to hopefully prevent WIkipedia from morphing into a business directory or a blog or whatever. If you haven't read the following listed guidelines yet (I think they all apply in this case), you might want to refer to them - they're really helpful.

Notability
Notability (people)
Notability (creative professionals)
Notability (entertainers)
Biographies of Living persons
Neutral point of view
Conflict of interest
Avoid peacock terms -- Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Source Added: Brian Garrity, New York Post, June 12, 2007:

" David Cote traveled to New York shortly after the Cannes Festival in 2007. He worked with Cinematic Talent Agency as well as Abram's Artists in Manhattan, and booked a role in a USA National Busch Beer commercial. Cote seems to have a hand in all aspects of film and television ^[1]. Cote initially funded his film projects through earnings he made working as an actor in film and television <ref>[Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007]</ref>." NickSoroka (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject clearly satisfies #3 of WP:CREATIVE. While IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical content, it is an accurate source for verifying what projects an Actor; Director; Producer; Cinematographer; Writer; Editor; Composer; Second Unit Director or Assistant Director; Miscellaneous Crew; Sound Department; Music Department; Art Director; Production Manager like David Cote has been involved with. These credits are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America and are therefore highly accurate and reliable. The imdb list of credits for David Cote as all of the above mentioned roles is both long and impressive. (I wrote the above, forgot to sign in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickSoroka (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above. Imdb is a reliable enough a source to establish #3 of WP:CREATIVE. Even with this source alone, it's called a "one source tag"; which would have been a better solution than dragging this through an AFD. Imbd does show what projects the person has been in and in this case shows he passes the third criteria of the WP:CREATIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.205.151 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:CREATIVE guideline is that the person have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." Unfortunately, none of the films that Dave Cote has had a significant hand in are notable. His involvement in notable films like Watchmen (film) and Battlestar Galactica has been limited to bit parts.

I have used this as a template for some of the article on David Cote (film director), as per direction from <+jeremyb> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bryce NickSoroka (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I think you are misunderstanding WP:CREATIVE #3 there.

...has created, or played a major role in co-creating^{See A below}, a significant or well-known work,^{See B below} or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent^{See C below} book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

MULTIPLE PERIODICAL ARTICLES OR REVIEWS - Cote meets that criteria, see listed sources in article.

A. This refers to the people who make the work, ie (co-)director/producer etc. Playing a bit-part as "Man at Club" and so on does not confer this.

AS ABOVE, THE ARTICLES WRITTEN, INVOLVE A FEATURE FILM TITLED "WINDUP"; A FEATURE FILM TITLED "DON'T TELL MY AGENT(BOOKER)" - COTE WAS EXEC. PRODUCER/PRODUCER/DIRECTOR OF THESE FILMS. AND THESE ARE THE FILMS ON WHICH THE ARTICLES FOCUSED, IN RELATION TO COTE.

B. If these works were "significant" then we should have an article about them. If we don't, that is some indication they are not.

THERE ARE SEVERAL ARTICLES, SEE SOURCES AGAIN.

C. That is, independent reliable sources about these works - not the mere existence of them. Showing a person wrote a movie called "Foo" does not mean they satisfy the criteria; "Foo" would have to be a notable work, with the consequent independent materials about it.

A NEWS ARTICLE IS NEVER JUST ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A WORK, IT IS A STORY, THAT IS NEWSWORTHY, AND GOES TO PRINT. NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA'S STATING FACTS OF EXISTENCE (that's what Wikipedia and other Encyclopedia's are for), THEY ARE STORIES THAT ARE NOTEWORTHY, OR NOTABLE. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A NEWSPAPER. NOW IF WE ARE TO GO INTO THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE OF WHAT PERCENTAGE OF NEWS PRINTED IS WORTHWHILE, AND TO WHOM, AND BASED ON WHAT, THEN YOU ARE GETTING INTO OPPINION.

The listing added shows that Mr. Cote appeared as an actor in several works; however, the CREATIVE criteria does not apply in those cases, as he did not "create or co-create".

AGAIN, IT IS NOT COTE'S "ACTOR ROLES" THAT YOU ARE BASING YOUR ARGUMENT ON. PLEASE STICK TO YOUR POINT. YOU HAVE FAULTY ARGUMENTS. YOU CANNOT EVALUATE A FILM COTE PRODUCED IN A) OF YOUR ARGUMENT, THEN REFER TO A FILM COTE ACTED IN AS B) OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

In the cases where he was director or producer, such as "Inertia (2011)", I do not see evidence that that work has been the subject of a book, film, or lots of periodical articles.

AGAIN, PLEASE STICK TO YOUR POINT. THE FILM IN QUESTION HERE, "WINDUP", WAS WRITTEN ABOUT IN SEVERAL NEWS ARTICLES. YOUR ARGUMENTS TEND TO JUMP TOPICS IN AN ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE YOUR POINT. HERE IS WHAT I MEAN: YOU ARGUE ABOUT A NOTABLE FILM (WINDUP), THEN SAY COTE ONLY PLAYS ACTOR ROLES (NOW REFERRING TO DIFFERENT FILM, IE: WATCHMEN), THEN STATE THAT THE WORK IS NOT YET CREATED (NOW REFERRING TO INERTIA.)

Also, remember that WP:CREATIVE is a guideline. At heart, the discussion here, is if Mr. Cote satisfies the requirements of notability - viz. if there are, or are not, multiple independent reliable sources writing specifically about this individual ('significant coverage'). Chzz ► 23:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND ALSO REMEMBER, WE VERIFIED NOTABILITY. AND NOW WE HAVE VERIFIED CREATIVE.
Additional News Source Added:

"Dave Cote headed a group alongside the RCMP, Fire Department, City Hall and Parks and Leisure Services, to apply for a Youth Services Grant. Once obtained, the grant was used to solve initiatives within the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows communities dealing with violence and intimidation, fire safety, and youth employment. The program was a success, helping raise the youth employment rate, as well as providing new programs for teenagers that would keep them away from the trend of bullying that was on the rise at the time of the grant project <ref> Jessica Whiteside, Tuesday, January 4th, 2000, Ridge Meadows Times, “Forum to guage opinion on areas of concern” </ref>." NickSoroka (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional News source (New):

"The $170,000 Youth Services Canada grant inspired Cote to pursue higher education, starting at Douglas College and then finishing at Simon Fraser University. While at Douglas College, Cote was elected to the position of University Transfer Representative. He used his own experience of being a “highschool dropout” to help guide youth in similar situations towards higher education <ref> Karin Mark, Wednesday, January 5th, 2000, The Maple Ridge News, “Project takes grassroots approach to youth issues”</ref>."

Again, I have all articles and can forward them as needed. NickSoroka (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source:

"As noted in The Local, “Windup” was a feature film with a cast of 50, shot in over 40 locations, with actors John Read, Lurene Music, Alex Bruhanski, Mel Tuck and Cote as billed cast. Windup was a feat never before accomplished on a budget under $10,000 <ref> Andrew Gold, Monday, April 9th, 2007 ,The Local </ref>." NickSoroka (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting duplicated !vote Chzz ► 04:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. Now, I have added many sources, and to the WP:CREATIVE, Cote is listed on imdb, as being involved in, as well as playing a role in helping create, many films, including producer and director. Further, I have sourced Cote's involvement with the community and youth in his early life, as well as his move up the ranks in College and University settings, not only as student but as political advocate. This leads into his film career, which is sourced many times now by verifiable and differing news sources. From what I understand, three reliable sources substantiates "notable", as per discussions i've had on the live webchat, and a news paper article is one of the most reliable. I think that now, based on the news articles, it can be deduced that the listed information on imdb is credible and true. I further deduce that based on the various sitings of fashion model websites that Cote is represented by worl-wide, it is obvious that this shows how Cote's travels in the fashion realm led to the production and involvement in the films "Don't Tell My Booker!!!" and "Model Culture". And so, it seems very reasonable to say that all of the sources in the article, and all of the content, should be kept.[reply]

Thank You, NickSoroka (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, your 'Keep" is already listed up above, thought you'd like to know that editors can make their opinions heard but only one vote will count in an AfD discussion. Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I think this article should be kept because i've seen alot of film people on here and sometimes they only cite IMDB. This article seems to have many solid sources. saira de Goede —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.97.220 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — 99.233.97.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article meets all the criteria. As an argument, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hibbert , sources three times by 1)imdb 2) ibdb and 3)http://americantheatrewing.org/seminars/detail/the_drowsy_chaperone_04_06 (which gives name as 'actor', nothing more.) Now edward hibbert has worked with david bowie, and edward norton, and appears on broadway, but none of this is sourced. David Cote (film director) is clearly sourced and not only in imdb but in many other publications and news papers. now, it's not even a question that edward hibbert belongs in wiki, and it is also not a question that david cote belongs in wiki. i nominate to keep the article David Cote (film director). Mr. Frank Salloway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.37.68 (talk • contribs) 16:39, October 12, 2010— 76.64.37.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As with the Ian Bryce article mentioned above, Edward Hibbert has worked on major productions whose notability is undisputed, and his work has apparently been significant enough to attract attention on its own right. If there was a review of Watchmen that called out Dave Cote for his work playing "Man in Club" then you would have a strong case for notability, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - this is all so interesting, the different views. I have to say though Tim Pierce, you seem very one sided. There are news articles, many sites that ARE calling out David Cote's name as actor, director, and more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia :

"Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."[5]"

now, the sources for David Cote are from News Sources, in print and one online. News Sources are deemed reliable in establishing notability for inclusion in wikipedia. And since the one online newspaper corroborates the in-print articles, it follows that several news sources have indicated that David Cote as a film director is notable. Further, there are several sources of David Cote working in the fashion world, and he is clearly on the fashion agency websites, which are the businesses that represent and employ david cote. since they could be sued for putting his image on their sites if it weren't true that he was associated with them, then it follows that David Cote notably works in the fashion industry. This fact is also mentioned in the other sources, which prove that it is highly probable, if not obvious, that david cote did produce the film "Model Culture", and while doing so, worked with other notable celebrities (this is also indicated in the listed sources). None of these sources are self-published, and therefore they do not violate the notability rules of wikipedia. Therefore, it seems that the only conclusion can be that david cote (film director) is notable, does not violate the inclusion rules, and should remain as an article in wikipedia. NickSoroka (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I seem one-sided, it's because I don't think this is a very controversial case. You are correct that there are news sources to confirm that, for example, David Cote directed a movie called Windup, and that he attended Simon Fraser University. But the existence of news sources does not in and of itself make Cote notable; for that, the film itself would also have to be notable, and I'm not seeing the evidence. I don't think that exhibiting it in the Cannes Short Film Corner alone counts, and I don't think that potential future distribution deals qualify either. I'm sorry. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is the individual at issue, not the film. if it's an article of creation for Windup, then yes, notability has to be shown on the film. The article created is David Cote, who has made notable contributions to the community in regards to lowering violence and bullying, as well as youth employment rates, then going on to make films, of which are notable in themeslves (to the degree that Cote's university and 3-4 newspapers wrote about it.) Let's agree to disagree on the notability of the film Windup, in particular. However, I think it's safe to say that Cote is notable as someone who's been in the paper as a film director who's emerged, made enough of an impression that these various papers sought it as "newsworthy", and put it to print. There was enough attention on the individual to illicit the media's articles, and from reliable news sources.

NickSoroka (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick - Please don't use ALL CAPS in your posts, that style is considered to be the Internet-equivalent of SHOUTING.
Everyone - Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors..
Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (four of ~). Please post in order from top to bottom, in a thread and on page, the most recent posts being at the bottom of a thread or at the bottom of the page. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone, please do not break up other editors' posts with your own replies Even if you disagree with another editor, please respect the process enough to leave others' comments alone. Just reply beneath their post and indent your comments with a colon ( : ).

Shearonink

Thank you, I wasn't meaning to yell, just to separate my text from the other writer, to answer on each point. But now I know to just answer underneath the whole message.. I answered each point because that's what I saw being done by other editors. Point taken:) I was top of my class in Logic & Reasoning, but not in anger management (thus the yelling - that's a joke;) NickSoroka (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to make an attempt to sum up the discussion so far, because trying to follow the discussion as it's listed above is making my head hurt.

Arguments in favor of keeping the Dave Cote article: Dave Cote is notable for having directed three films, one of which was accepted into the Short Film Corner at the Cannes Film Festival; for having worked on many other films; and for his work on youth services programs in neighborhoods in Ottawa. Reliable sources for this information exist at Maple Ridge News, Ridge Meadows Times and the Simon Fraser University alumni magazine. The sources for the Dave Cote article are at least as good as for other Wikipedia articles such as Ian Bryce and Edward Hibbert.
Arguments against keeping the Dave Cote article: Cote is not yet notable as a filmmaker because his work is not notable. There has not yet been significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The articles in Maple Ridge News etc. are a good start, but they are essentially local human-interest pieces; they don't constitute significant media coverage by themselves. Participation in the Short Film Corner is also promising, but that appears to be a professional networking program run as an offshoot of the primary Cannes Film Festival, and does not in itself seem to confer notability. Cote's work on youth services is laudable, but the sources here are too thin to confirm notability. On top of all this, the article's creator and chief author appears to have had some kind of professional relationship with Dave Cote and may still have one, which makes it yet more difficult to tease out potential conflict of interest issues.

My impression overall is that this is a filmmaker with what may be a promising career and who may yet become notable enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but that this is clearly not yet the case. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note that the above "Summary" is actually a comment, and is written and filtered by the nominator of "Delete". Missed in the above comment are that there are additional sources (NY POST; The Local; BC News Group). I further summarize that the sources for David Cote satisfy WP:CREATIVE and NOTABILITY and that those are the only issues at hand:
- Multiple periodical are written involving a feature film titled "windup" and a feature film titled "don't tell my agent(booker)" - cote was creator, and director of these films. Since these articles are printed in news sources (New York Post, Maple Ridge Times, Ridgemeadows Times, The Local), then they are notable, as newsworthy stories in print. Further, it is notable that Cote has contributed further to the community as is printed in more news sources.

This satisfies both WP:CREATIVE and NOTABILITY. NickSoroka (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am concerned about the possibility of meatpuppetry in this AfD. Of the three keep !votes here, two (Nick Soroka, the article's principal author, and Saira de Goede) have either worked on or appeared in Dave Cote's films. I would like to dismiss this as unimportant, but, unfortunately, I think the lack of plausible independent keeps points up Cote's general lack of notability. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well Tim, why not use Wikipedia:CheckUser to see that this is Not the case. You should be careful when jumping to such derogatory terms, and this is warned explicitly in meatpuppetry. It is also stated by Wikipedia that "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." I fear that your arguments are invalid in that they use 'abductive reasoning', either Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent. The two examles you mention above are not Meatpuppetry, different IP's, and would not stand up to scrutiny. As mentioned above:

- Your arguments tend to jump topics in an attempt to validate your point (ie: referring to the film "Windup" in the article, then jumping topics to another film "Watchment" to argue that Cote only played actor bit parts, then again jumping topics to "Inertia" in an attempt to say the film is not yet completed. The initial point of your argument, "Windup", satisfies WP:CREATIVE and Notability, but your Affirming the Consequent gives the impression that your argument is valid, when clearly it is not: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A821107.

Serious news editors (and Encyclopedic editors) should be careful when forming arguments, specifically in the case where one is biased. Stick to the facts: 1)Newspaper Articles validate Notability. 2)"Windup", "Don't tell my Booker", and David Cote, were written about as the focus of several independent News Sources. 3) Cote is also mentioned as the Producer and Creator of these films. Therefore: "Windup", "Don't Tell my Booker", and David Cote are Notable and satisfy WP:CREATIVE. NickSoroka (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- I have to agree with Nick. I am not an editor, but I am a teacher, and I must say, the day we appeal to oppinion or faulty argument, over verifiable data, is the day we are in serious trouble. This is a very interesting page, and I will definitely check back another day to see the outcome! I reviewed the sources of 'said article', and it appears this Wikipedia entry should remain, based on news data. Of course, if this is a forum on oppinion, delete, and may our children inheret our new age;) Cheers, Timothy Wood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.80.9 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) — 99.234.80.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Although it 'may' be the case that nicksaroka was affiliated at some point with a production of David Cote's, this does not dismiss the point that the article is notable and newsworthy. I think it is common for someone to put forth an article on a topic that interests them, or that they perhaps were affiliated with at some point in the past, as this is human nature. However, if nicksoroka did cross paths with David Cote years ago, I don't think this gives ample reason to dismiss the article's validity. Mr. Frank Salloway 76.64.37.68 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC) — 76.64.37.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete After following this debate, and cutting through the lengthy discussion, I am purely considering basic requirements WP:V and WP:GNG. I cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which are about the subject. Therefore, I do not think there is enough verifiable information for an article. Chzz ► 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the following reasons:

This article's subject does not fulfill Notability as actor...

has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1755945/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.172.126 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)— 206.108.172.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

does not have a large fan base
has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to entertainment

does not fulfill WP:Notability (films)...Windup, Don't Tell..., Model Diaries...

General Principles - all films mentioned fail the 'general principle' parameters:

1)not widely distributed, have not received any full-length reviews from two or more nationally-known critics
2)not historically notable - none have been deemed notable by broad survey of film critics etc., none have been given commercial re-release or festival screenings, none have received major awards
3)none of the films have been selected for preservation, are (not) taught as a subject of a university course

Other evidence of notability: none of the projects are a unique accomplishment in cinema.

The subject of the article does not fulfill Creative professionals...WP:CREATIVE

1)not regarded as an important figure, not widely cited by peers
3)Mr. Cote's films (WIndup, Don't Tell my Booker/Agent, Model Diaries...) are not significant or well-known works (and It is a misperception of their incidental appearances in "Don't Tell..." to state the majority of the various celebrities mentioned 'worked with' article's subject). Mr Cote's body of work has also not been the subject of an independent book/feature-length film/article.

Regarding using IMDb as a source:

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Future_films#Resources it is not considered reliable.
Per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb:

~Acceptable: Writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America, MPAA ratings that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America. However, so far as I can tell none of Mr. Cote's projects have the imprimatur of either the MPAA or the WGA.

~Disputed usage: IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia... Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.

Continuing issues with References... Reference #11 (as presently stated) in the Ref section does not seem to exist - there does not seem to be an article written by Brian Garrity dated in Jun 2007 in the 2 main publications I looked through (searched archives of New York Post and also searched Billboard both of which Mr. Garrity worked for in 2007, also did many Google searches for Garrity + Film + Cote, Garrity + David Cote, etc., within that timeframe).

Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Any mention of 'Inertia' (especially for it being released in 2011) in the article should probably be scrubbed, this project has been in various stages of 'pre-production' since 2009. -- Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This articles subject does fulfill Notability as actor:

Has had significant roles in multiple films and television shows http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1755945/filmotype
Note: roles with a sir name are, in most cases, lead, supporting or principal role (Cote has 12 roles of this type in TV and Film that are widely distributed and known.)
- Cote has a fan base, as indicated in the articles as well as fan pages. Although hard to provide via the internet, here are a few: Youtube (30,000 views of his work as a director); http://www.filmannex.com/ (on intro page is indicated that Cote’s film, “Windup”, is in first place in the “War of Films” competition, currently running.)
- Has been invited to the Cannes Festival, with “Windup”, that was widely written about in News Periodicals.

In terms of notability as a film maker, Notability is met by various News Sources, both in print and online. Also, out of over a million film submissions to the Cannes 2007 Short Film Corner, Cote’s “Windup” was chosen, which is a great accomplishment. Adding to this, “Windup” is still winning film competitions, as is evident at www.filmannes.com, that is currently running. The Film Annex competition takes place in New York City, where their offices reside.

News sources:

Jessica Whiteside, Tuesday, January 4th, 2000, Ridge Meadows Times, “Forum to gauge opinion on areas of concern”
Karin Mark, Wednesday, January 5th, 2000, The Maple Ridge News, “Project takes grassroots approach to youth issues”
Andrew Gold, Monday, April 9th, 2007 ,The Local
Staff Reporter, June 7th, 2006, BC News Group, “Winding up a crazy dream”
MAPLE RIDGE TIMES NEWS
Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007
Brian Garrity, New York Post, “Film Film $hoot”,Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007

Note: News sources IN PRINT are favorable to those ONLINE, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources

Note: IMDb is a reliable source, with information coming from the Writers Guild. It is widely used on Wikipedia. The Cote article uses both internal and external IMDb links, on both levels of actor and producer/director.

David Cote’s notability are from News Sources, the online film community and periodicals, that prove the reliability of the Cote article and establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is passed on the level of an Actor, as well as the level of a Creator and Director.

NickSoroka (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

David Cote (film director) came through the Articles for Creation process. Initially the article was poorly sourced, and was nominated for deletion. Since that point, many new sources have been listed. Other initial questions were on Notability and WP:CREATIVE. Reasons and policy were brought forward to argue for and against these questions. Consensus is a process, to find a "middle ground", and administrative authority usually focuses on editor behavior and not on deletion. As the article for creation was created, and as sources have increased and policy has been properly followed, the aim of this AfD discussion is to improve the article, not necessarily delete it.

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus before commencing with any further discussion.

NickSoroka (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You're kidding, right? the aim of this AfD discussion is to improve the article, not necessarily delete it. AfD is not the Article Improvement Workshop, it's where challenged articles fight for their survival and the unworthy majority are put to the sword. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Source added: http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Dave+Cote/stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.54.54 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC) — 70.25.54.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

->The "Additional Source" link posted above is not a link to NY Daily News stories about the article's subject, it is merely a listing of all instances of when the word "Dave" + the word "Cote" appear together on the same page of that newspaper. In addition, the link was added by an IP-editor who later impersonated 'Heron' and so, the link & its information should be disregarded. I have preserved its appearance on this page for future reference. Shearonink (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- As has been requested before, for editors not to edit other comments. Leaving a comment is fine, but striking out a comment is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.205.151 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010(UTC)— 76.74.205.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Regardless of whether the "Additional Source"/NY Daily News post is cosmetically struck-out (not deleted, not edited but leaving the text in a form that other editors are still able to read) or not, the information it contains is invalid for the purposes of this discussion. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To summarize my more detailed reasons listed above, there is not the required significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources as stated by the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines for Notability as actor and WP:CREATIVE, also the subject's three stated projects have not fulfilled the required parameters of WP:Notability (films). -- Shearonink (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had erroneously thought that since this AfD had been re-listed consensus was being gathered all over again. I apologize to my fellow editors for the error and have therefore deleted my extraneous/second vote & changed it to a mere 'comment'. Shearonink (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He only has minor roles in a few major films, major roles in minor ones, and the press coverage is local. Promising start, but he isn't there yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The films he made exist, as does he, and there's news articles showing it. Sounds like truth to me. Heron (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck, per impersonation attempt. An IP made this !vote, probably not Heron (talk · contribs). /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note... At 06:33 on 17 October 2010 99.233.97.220 (talk) deleted one of the symbols for strikethrough that /ƒETCH COMMS / made on the so-called "Heron" vote. I have restored the integrity of Fetchcomm's action. Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Heron has confirmed that this was a forgery. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously, when people start meatpuppeting, socking, and who knows what else to save a Wikipedia article, they know the article has no chance of survival. David Cote has not had any significant roles, and the coverage he has received is not enough to establish his notability. Maybe if he lands a major role and gets covered in-depth for it, he will be notable, but right now, this seems like a last-ditch attempt at publicizing a non-notable person. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note... At 7:18 on 17 October 2010 NickSoroka edited the appearance of Fetchcomm's vote from a bold with three apostrophes to an italic with two apostrophes. I have restored the integrity of Fetchcomm's original vote's appearance. Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Wow this discussion is intense. On behalf of Wikipedia, and on those interested in keeping this article, please do not break any rules or use any charged language, as it WILL NOT HELP. This said, as I have said before, the article satisfies WP:CREATIVE and Notability:

Has had significant roles in multiple films and television shows http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1755945/filmotype

Note: roles with a sir name are, in most cases, lead, supporting or principal role (Cote has 12 roles of this type in TV and Film that are widely distributed and known.)

Cote has a fan base, as indicated in the articles as well as fan pages. Although hard to provide via the internet, here are a few: **Youtube (30,000 views of his work as a director); http://www.filmannex.com/ (on intro page is indicated that Cote’s film, “Windup”, is in first place in the “War of Films” competition, currently running.)
Has been invited to the Cannes Festival, with “Windup”, that was widely written about in News Periodicals.

As a film maker, Notability is met by various News Sources, both in print and online. Also, out of over a million film submissions to the Cannes 2007 Short Film Corner, Cote’s “Windup” was chosen, which is a great accomplishment. Adding to this, “Windup” is still winning film competitions, as is evident at www.filmannes.com, that is currently running. The Film Annex competition takes place in New York City, where their offices reside. News sources:

Jessica Whiteside, Tuesday, January 4th, 2000, Ridge Meadows Times, “Forum to gauge opinion on areas of concern”
Karin Mark, Wednesday, January 5th, 2000, The Maple Ridge News, “Project takes grassroots approach to youth issues”
Andrew Gold, Monday, April 9th, 2007 ,The Local
Staff Reporter, June 7th, 2006, BC News Group, “Winding up a crazy dream”
MAPLE RIDGE TIMES NEWS
Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007
Brian Garrity, New York Post, “Film Film $hoot”,Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007

Note: News sources IN PRINT are favorable to those ONLINE, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources

Note: IMDb is a reliable source, with information coming from the Writers Guild. It is widely used on Wikipedia. The Cote article uses both internal and external IMDb links, on both levels of actor and producer/director.

David Cote’s notability are from News Sources, the online film community and periodicals, that prove the reliability of the Cote article and establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is passed on the level of an Actor, as well as the level of a Creator and Director.

NickSoroka (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note... Since NickSoroka has already voted in this particular AfD, the preceding comment/Keep-"vote" should not be counted as another vote and should be considered as a Comment only.

Also - the assertion is made in the preceding post that 'Windup' was invited to the "Cannes Festival". Windup was actually submitted and accepted to the 'Cannes Short Film Corner' which is run by Cannes but per the Short Film Corner's own website the Corner should not be considered part of the main Palmes D'Or/"Cannes Film Festival" competition.Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE- actually, there are many categories at the Cannes Film festivel:

The Official Selection
- In Competition
- Palme d'Or
- Un Certain Regard
- Out of Competition
- Cinéfondation
- Short Film Corner
Parallel Sections
15 more categories..... so, as you can see, you are only mentioning one, Shearonink. ^[2] NickSoroka (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Cannes Film Festival is the most prestigious film festival in the world, and any film entered and accepted is Notable. As per the above note, there are 20+ film categories, the Short Film Corner is but one of them. They are all a part of the festival, and you can simply do a search on the official Cannes film Festival website to see this (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en.html), now, as for a 'separate' website for the short corner, well, there are a hundred websites for Cannes and all the various categories. Stick to the official site, hit CTRL 'F' and type "short film corner" and PRESTO! There it is! NickSoroka (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Short Film Corner's official websiteEnglish versionFrench version states "The registration of your film at the Short Film Corner has nothing to do with the short film Competition or the Cinefondation." The Short Film Corner is run by the Festival but is not part of the main competitions for short films or part of the Cinefondation. A filmmaker at reduser.net[14] states his opinion as "The Short Film Corner is not a "selection", anyone can register their shorts and you pay for so. It's a big market and great venue/window for buyers and distributors, and also an amazing place for short film makers around the world to exchange, share and network." Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannes web site appears to confirm this: http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/aboutFestivalHistory/aboutHistory.html says "The same year [2004], the Short Film Corner, a welcome and promotional platform for shorts, was created." The "Festival Milestones" page at http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/about/festivalHistory.html describes the Short Film Corner as "a market exclusively reserved to short films." It seems clear that a film entered at the Short Film Corner is not in competition, and so to say that it was "accepted at Cannes" is misleading at best. —Tim Pierce (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At 07:50, 17 October 2010, NickSoroka a) edited the article removing display of the deletion notice [15] and b) moved this page changing the word deLetion (with an L for Lima) to deIetion (with an I for India) [16]. I have undone both these changes. Chzz ► 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NickSoroka (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. The question for me is whether or not the information is ACCURATE, VERIFIABLE, and WRITTEN NEUTRALLY. It seems to me that these fundamental needs are met. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG. Notability is not an optional criteria. Because it seems this article was created VIA Articles for Creation, I suggest a less antagonistic approach than to delete, which is to Move the article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/David Cote (film director), as an erroneous creation, without redirect. This will preserve the history of this article while allowing future edits in NS=4. Declining the submission will not preclude future edits as well. My76 Strat 16:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note: this is technically a move, not a delete.NickSoroka (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the bold "delete" !vote above, which NickSoroka edited. Please do not edit comments made by other users. Chzz ► 11:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems my comment above lacks clarity and I therefor offer this clarification. With regard to this AfD, Delete is the appropriate action when comparing the article to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Mainly based on general notability guidelines and the lack of significant coverage to establish such notability. The suggestion to move the article back to articles for creation, was just that, a suggestion. It is entirely at the closing administrators discretion and valid arguments against such a suggestion exist. My76 Strat 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the information in this article is Accurate and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.60.99 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) — 70.69.60.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Information is Reliable and Accurate, Verifiable and Noteworthy. I like the comparison to Edward Hibbert and Ian Bryce. In reading through the articles, one would have to keep the David Cote article, as there is more verifiable evidence to support inclusion than there is in the Hibbert and Bryce articles.

Edward Hibbert - References:
- 1. http://www.filmreference.com/film/82/Edward-Hibbert.html
- 2. Glitz, Michael (2001-12-25). "Hibbert on: out actor Edward Hibbert talks about the Noises Off revival, his side career as an agent, and the best antidote to anthrax". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2007-11-01. Retrieved 2007-06-21.
Ian Bryce - References:
- 1. http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/29078
- 2. http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1990-1999/71nominees.html
David Cote (film director) - References:
- 1. http://www.modelmayhem.com/108531
- 2. Jessica Whiteside, Tuesday, January 4th, 2000, Ridge Meadows Times, “Forum to gauge opinion on areas of concern”
- 3. Karin Mark, Wednesday, January 5th, 2000, The Maple Ridge News, “Project takes grassroots approach to youth issues”
- 4. http://www.sfu.ca/aq/archives/Nov2006/alumni_watching/index.html
- 5. http://www.sfu.ca/aq/archives/April_07/alumni_watching/index.html
- 6. http://shortfilmcorner.withoutabox.com/festivals/event_item.php?id=7304
- 7. Andrew Gold, Monday, April 9th, 2007 ,The Local
- 8. Staff Reporter, June 7th, 2006, BC News Group, “Winding up a crazy dream”
- 9. MAPLE RIDGE TIMES NEWS
- 10. [Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007]
- 11. [Modisha Martins, Maple Ridge News, "Filmmaker Smells success at Cannes", Wed., June 6th, 2007]
- 12. JOHN CASABLANCAS
- 13. X RAY MODELS
- 14. FLASH MODEL MANAGEMENT
- 15. "Oliver Driver Movies". Film.FM. Retrieved 2010-10-09.
- 16. http://www.watchthisfree.com/actors/jessica-simpson-145633/
- 17. imdb
Surely it's quite obvious that the Cote article should be a Keep. LosAngelsbaby (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) ^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks}[reply]
- Actually, I think you have helped to make the very important point that one link to the Academy Awards website or to the Los Angeles Times is worth more than a hundred links to "X RAY MODELS" or "Watchthisfree.com". This isn't a game of who can collect the most links. These sources, by and large, just aren't good. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But Mr. Tim Pierces, aren't Maple Ridge News, BC New Group, The Local and NY Post worthy? Because these are also referenced in the Cote article.. Aren't you being a little "biased"? You did nominate the deletion it appears. Do you hold a grudge against Canadians for some reason? This is one of the few Notable Canadian filmmakers on Wiki. Jonathan Wise.

99.233.97.220 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — 99.233.97.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Further to this, I came upon David Cote on Wikipedia after looking him up because I rented a movie called "Darkest Hour" from Blockbuster Video, and David Cote plays the lead role of Tibor. Here it is, an "Alliance Atlantis worldwide release: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475247/releaseinfo . J. Wise. 99.233.97.220 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — 99.233.97.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And once you had seen it, you were so impressed that you had to run over and make the acquaintance of Saira de Goede so you could post your comments from her computer? —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news sources provided are as credible and notable as any other sources on Wikipedia. Jonathan Wise. 99.233.97.220 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — 99.233.97.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: 99.233.97.220 has already submitted their "keep" recommendation above. I am changing this to a "comment" to reduce confusion over duplicate votes. —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that the debate here is between those who see that the Cote article is Verifiable; Accurate; Noteworthy, and those who are looking for small technical reasons to delete it. Wikipedia should be an Encyclopedia based on Accuracy, Verifiability and Noteworthiness, not a Forum for tech geeks. ;) Hbtz (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) ^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks}[reply]

Keep. Many sources, most, if not all, reliable. I don't see what the debate is about. The article was created, wasn't it? Hbtz (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) ^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbianpinoy

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

PROD contested by creator. Insufficient notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only mention I can find of this online is symbianpinoy.com, a mobile apps download site, with no apparent notability for that either. Top Jim (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:15, 16 October 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott W. Roberts

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

After reading through the page, I cannot find anything that seems to me to be notable. it should be deleted as such. The page does assert, with proper sourcing, that Roberts is well known in the "telescope manufacturing industry". I'm sure he is very enthusiastic about telescopes, but to me this is not notable. Outback the koala (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is not notable as CEO, CFO, etc. Nor invented or discovered anything. This basically an autobiography, including some of sources of reference which is from his own website(s).Astronomystars (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable per WP:BIO. Most sources for this article are not mentioning his name, just companies he works for. When mentioning his name, it is usually his own webpage. The article was (and still is) tagged for notability problems concerning these issues by another user. Infoidea (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if a minor planet is named after him, I think he deserves an article. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this "minor" planet was not discovered by him, but by Levy & Shoemaker. So, if anybody has a friend that discovers a comet, etc and the friend names it after them, they should get an article? Astronomystars (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is not a measure of notability. Had he discovered it himself, that would be a different story. Outback the koala (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I remember a recent AfD that was kept for something similar (perhaps that person was not in the field of the discoverer the buddies effect did not apply). I went through the history, and from the edits of the two main editors I came across somewhat similar entries that would perhaps deserve discussion: Stephen J. Edberg, Tippy D'Auria, and John Diebel. Perhaps not all 3, but some of these might be worth AfDing. Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think consensus is that naming a minor planet after a person is recongition of his importance in the subject DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quoting other user above "if anybody has a friend that discovers a comet, etc and the friend names it after them, they should get an article?" True! Also, I may know something about astronomy, but I don't think I deserve an article. Article is not notable.Mca2001 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 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) 04:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Lake (film)

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

The film is only sourced by IMDb (which has it being already released, which it hasn't) and an article that I can't find. The official website only has links to the twitter feed and facebook page which haven't been updated since earlier this year. There is not enough notable third-party coverage (or even first-party) to warrant an article for this future film per WP:NFF and WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 07:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No, IMDB does not have a release date for the film... but lists it as a 2009 film simply because that was the projected release year when the information was submitted to them. Apparently the project received some minor coverage while in 2008 production,[17][18] and seems to be lost in post-production... news having dried up. Definitely does not qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. However, it might merit a redirect to a sourced mention in the Roddy Piper article as one Piper's film projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

96.9 FM Innisfil, Ontario

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

Another station that's not yet on the air - see entry below, also. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's not on the air. There are a few pages about it on the Web, but they seem to be mostly or entirely user-edited websites and many of those are just mirrors of us. —Soap— 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Userspace - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable radio station without coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia

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

Low-power radio station that is not broadcasting yet and doesn't have a call sign. Should be deleted without prejudice to reposting when the station actually gets on the air. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's not even on the air yet and nobody seems to be talking about it other than the producers. —Soap— 23:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hint of WP:CRYSTAL mechamind 9 0 00:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Userspace - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was moved to CHVI-FM. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There are no reliable sources, even with the new name, indicates a non-notable radio station. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Note: The Recnet listings normally found at the bottom of all Canadian radio stations (due to the fact the CRTC website doesn't have listings like the FCC) is down for a system move and should be back up in early November. Please do not take the lack of these listings to mean the station is not a licensed station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:04, 21 October 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 Blue Monday (Orgy song). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Monday/Stitches

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

I'm confused. If this article is about the single, it's definitely notable. If it's just about this particular release, it's not. And if it's about the single, it's a remake and should maybe be discussed with the original Blue Monday (New Order song) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blue Monday (New Order song) --Diego Grez (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wow, what a mess. The main article (Orgy) links the charting (and notable) singles Stitch and Blue Monday to possibly non-notable EP's. The information should not be removed, but rather moved to an appropriate individual article for the songs. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The original Blue Monday (New Order song) is definitely notable. But the remake by Orgy is not so this article can be deleted. There is also nothing to be merged because the single is mentioned at the relevant Orgy album, and the cover version is mentioned (among dozens) at the article for the original. (This vote was originally "Delete" - see comment below). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - check out the charts on the current article, also here at the billboard site. I think that its success allows for a new page to be created for the song which was very popular, maybe Blue Monday (Orgy). - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I will concede that point, and changed my vote to "Weak Delete" because it charted high enough but I'm skeptical about slight third-party coverage. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I can look a little more into it tonight to see if there are any decent sources or coverage. Took me roughly ten years to forget about their version, I am not looking forward to this.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out Blue Monday (Orgy song) where I put the article I worked on replacing the redirect. I believe the article in AfD is about a particular release, as it matches the cover, track listing and article name of a particular release. Anyway, I think that the article in question should be made a redirect to either Orgy discography, as the particular release is not notable, or to the single I moved to mainspace a minute ago. Can't do this with the ongoing AfD though... so hopefully this discussion wont go on too much longer... ha - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me that you just made a new (and better) version of the same article, so now there is a duplicate. Your new article at Blue Monday (Orgy song) is surely an improvement, so the old one (under discussion here) should definitely be deleted. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Monday (Orgy song) - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally now say redirect to Theornamentalist's new article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral congenital amputee

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wiktionary Diego Grez (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NAD. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:01, 24 October 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 Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because You're Young

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

Definitely not a notable song D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps).--Michig (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was onboard merging. Each song on the album has an article? Look at the references for the rest, they clearly pass by many authors interests in Bowie. Although I don't have access to The Complete Bowie, I find it hard to believe that the other tracks have so much coverage and this one has none. I imagine those behind the building the others never made it this far... anyway, check out these results, many are mentions or listings, but a fair amount speak a bit about it. It may be wise to ask Bowie fans to work on it before deleting it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) per WP:NALBUM: non-notable songs should be redirected to the album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Safe

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

I don't think this song is notable enough for Wikipedia D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single, non-notable song. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N --Diego Grez (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 October 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. Consensus is unified and even the nominator has changed to keep. On a case by case basis and based upon the unanimity expressed here I am going to seedy the keep. JodyB_talk 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baker's Cross

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

Not a settlement in its own right, but more like a neighborhood of Cranbrook, Kent. And, no, settled placed are not inherently notable, as notability is not inherited D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, every single settlement should have its own article in Wikipedia, with no exception. Diego Grez (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the issue is the vague word settlement. The article states that it's part of another town (see above). I'm pretty sure that if I created an article call Roosevelt Neighborhood (Bellingham, WA) that it would be deleted. It's not its own town, it's a neighborhood of another. Baker's Cross sounds more like a neighborhood of Cranbrook. Harlem is notable, but NYC has 8 million people. Cranbrook has only 7000, so I would say none of its neighborhoods are notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 08:56, 16 October 2010
Keep. No-brainer keep; Wikipedia policy has always been that named settlements are always notable. I don't know where this idea that we don't have neighbourhood articles has come from; we have plenty. If the sources exist to say something about a place, the place should have an article. – iridescent 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, where is that policy? The bad arguments in deletion discussion explicitly lists "All examples of foo are inherently notable". Point to that policy so that I know it's real. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, I am really struggling to AGF here. The reality, my friend, is ... by a very large concensus ... --Senra (Talk) 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me quote the page you just linked to: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes unofficial neighborhoods..." - I see no evidence that this place is legally recognized, thus case-by-base, thus you don't understand the policy properly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like someone added a whole lot of content to this after my nomination. At the time I nominated, there were no sources. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time that you nominated, at least one of the sources had been in existence for 150 years. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't on Wikipedia :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Deletion policy does not require it to be. Deletion policy also requires you to have made thorough attempts to find such sources, as do Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:AFD#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due listed buildings such as [19], [20], [21] and [22] --Senra (Talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Notability (geography) states that places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis. So "keep" is not automatic in this case unless someone can show it is legally recognized. The geography notability policy should not be abused to protect every place that ever existed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does being marked on a map constitute legal recognition? Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough good sources to write an article. Nobody is abusing policy. Policy exists to help us write good articles. This could become one. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Baker's Cross is a hamlet. As well as the four Grade II listed buildings, there was at least one watermill at Baker's Cross, and possibly as many as five. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not ~~Nomination withdrawn~~. People here have made a good case, and Uncle G deserves credit for the save. Note to administrator, do not list this as nomination withdrawn, the keep is pretty blatant, and means a lot more to this subject's merit than nomination withdrawn. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyle Card Games

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

the only content this articlr really has is one run-on sentence. Should be deleted Michael Jackson FOREVER!! (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I don't believe it's a valid rationale for deletion anyway, but since I've had a quick tinker with the article it no longer applies anyway. Someone another 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone another. Nom's reason is... unconvincing. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bad faith nom? There's little content, but two decent refs. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially with recent expansion by Someone another (talk · contribs). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has reliable sources to pass GNG. Nominator hasn't given a valid rationale for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:19, 21 October 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) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back ta Basics

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

This is not a notable record label D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails notability. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 17 October 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) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miyama Ryu

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

Another non-notable martial arts style. All references are self referential.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've never heard of it. Its not significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs)
Delete Non-notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be quite a few references from different sources online, and Google Books brings up a few mentions. Citations appear go back to the 1990s. Is there evidence that most of these references are not valid? --Tim D (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable martial art. None of the references in the article are independent. The closest I came to finding an independent source was a book at amazon.com, but it turns out to be published by the people who own the Miyama Ryu Combat Jujutsu trademark--not exactly independent. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no third party sources that show this art passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 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) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Brownlie Fleming

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

Questionable notability; web search brings up mostly self-referential and product-marketing material. Appears to have originally been created as a vanity page. - Tim D (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A vanity page that has become a venue for personal attacks. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 04:58, 22 October 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. Consensus seems to be in favor of keeping at least some of the content. A merge proposal may continue at the article's talk page, but consensus is not toward deleting the article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation as theft

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

This is not an encyclopaedic article. It's a soapbox speech dressed up with (valid) references to make it look like an article. I believe it violates WP:SOAPBOX points 1 and 2, by dint of the fact that while it appears to express a neutral point of view, the article itself is not a neutral point of view. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It feels like this might do better as a section in another article, in an abbreviated form. Perhaps in tax resistance? --Tim D (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, or merge to Wikiversity. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the POV and Debate tags are accurate; it's a badly-written article that needs a lot of help. But the idea of having a wikipedia article dedicated to this concept isn't a bad one, and merging it with another article seems more likely to clutter another article than to help the problem with this one. — (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about Profit as theft? Would that be an equally worthy topic for an ~~essay~~ article? This is a POV Trojan Horse in classical form: a title written in such a way that a POV essay emerges as an inevitable result. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because profit is not theft - profit is an indicator of the success of business etc. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to tax resistance per Tdowling and WP:CHEAP. AfD is not here to fix childish essays. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to tax resistance, preserving the citations only. The same should go for taxation as slavery. Both are essays that present present points of view with a veneer of neutrality. Of course, it would be entirely appropriate to cite the arguments of those who think that taxation is theft or slavery in the articles devoted to that person, e.g., Murray Rothbard. But the position is not so notable apart from its proponents and tax resistance in general to warrant its own article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no doubt this article could use some work but the concept is established and notable.Stupidstudent (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an established philosophy mentioned or held by Bastiat, Mises, Rothbard, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Williams, etc. All deletion votes are WP:SOFIXITs (of course it's not about a neutral POV, we have lots of articles about nonneutral POVs). If I were inclined, I'd merge taxation as slavery into it, and then rename as something resembling "Views opposed to taxation", which is the subhead in Tax that has a much better overview of this topic (tax as theft, aggression (slavery), anti-communist, etc.). It and the shorter slavery article (same creator) seem to have a happy 2-year history per se and as entries in the "Tax resistance" template despite their essay style. Merging to tax resistance does not fit that article's structure and I'm unclear on the resist v. protest difference to determine which of the two this philosophy represents better. JJB 02:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This is a very well known phrase, and a suitable subject for an article. It is not the same as tax resistance, though it may sometimes be the theory behind it. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 23 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland School for Travelling Show Children

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

Unremarkable primary (elementary) school. Delete, or merge to Queensland per accepted procedure. Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school is clearly notable. This school is of a type that is perhaps unique in the world even though it caters to only a few children. Its existence shows that provision of education to all even in the most arduous circumstances is possible. Silent Billy (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Keep. ~~Very strapped for time now but the article looks like it has potential and am willing to give it some time later today.~~I've just done a simple Google Scholar search using the full (long) title and returned 33 hits. Without going any further, that indicates a prima facie case for me of the notability of this institution. If others feel differently I'd be interested to know why. RashersTierney (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC) RashersTierney (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! It beats my feeble efforts of researching. Have you added them to the article? Then perhaps we can call for an early close as 'keep'. --Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To suggest this school is "unremarkable" seems a little odd since its notability rests in its innovative approach to serving an unusual cohort. Reliable sources appear readily available. An easy keep. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Criticism of the nomination, and 'I like it', and 'I think that...' lend little towards advancing the improvement or deletion of articles that a re subject to AfD. Facts are what are needed.--Kudpung (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Facts' are the demonstrated academic interest in this particular educational institution - 'I Like It' is not a factor. RashersTierney (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable school as evident by sufficient independent sources. Have added as other sources: Danaher, Geoff and Moriarty, Beverley and Danaher, Patrick Alan (2006) Challenging heterotopic space: a study of the Queensland school for travelling show children. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 3 (1). pp. 40-51. ISSN 1832-2050 and Olding, Rachel (2010) Show and tell: travelling school in a class of its own, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 14. Seems to have been nominated for deletion only 8 mins after creation and 3 minutes after an edit by the creator. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

11 minutes, and 48 hours later still had no convincing sources. Remember that this is not a CSD or a PROD where articles 'disappear' without the chance of defending themselves. I do not pretend to be right all the time. and not I, but the community will decide. I'm perfectly happy for the article to be retained if it 1. meets criteria for notability, and 2. is correctly sourced; or merged if it is not - as I stated in the rationale which is based clearly on an accepted procedure for primary schools, irrespective of their shape, size, or location. --Kudpung (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Even now it is less than 30 hours since the article was first posted. When AfD tag was put on there were external refs. Silent Billy (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the very opposite of a unremarkable primary school. It is a quite remarkable primary school and the article is now sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources now. I don't normally support separate primary school articles but this one makes a case for WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am just wondering why there isn't a push to whack AfDs on most of the British Prep Schools which have articles here. There are after all K-8 primary schools and most have no proper referencing let alone any coverage on TV, radio, non-advertorial newspaper articles and academic journals. I suppose it's because they are private schools catering to the carriage trade and not publicly funded and catering to the caravan trade like QSTSC. Silent Billy (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Silent Billy. most of those schools just don't meet notability. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic - WP:OTHERSTUFF --Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Below is a selection of some of the sources available about this school from around the country, spanning over 10 years. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverman, Hannah (3 September 2009), "Children who keep the Show on the road", The Advertiser

"Education is a journey for show kids", Canberra Times, 24 February 2007

Grube, Kathy (15 October 2004), "School's on the road again", Tasmanian Country

"School of wheels Travelling kids learn on move", The Cairns Post, 22 July 2004

Sinclair, Jenny (20 March 2002), "School's On The Road Again", The Age

Hughes, Tim (16 March 2002), "Showkids' school a movable feast", The Australian

Murray, David (13 August 1999), "Mobile school's on the road for show kids", Courier Mail

Keep Clearly notable. Orderinchaos 04:59, 22 October 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Upcoming Third And Then There Were None Studio Album

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

I only discovered WP:HAMMER law earlier today, and by coincidence I discovered this article on recent change patrol, which was deprodded by an IP. Hammer time! Sailsbystars (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ Hammer time!. Fails WP:HAMMER miserably, as even the title isn't even known yet and also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. LOL - Fails WP:CRYSTAL --Diego Grez (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is a no-brainer per WP:HAMMER. The group's fans can wait a few months. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable unreleased album. Additionaly it fails TenPoundHammer's Law, as the title of the album is unknown. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:09, 21 October 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guest on Labby, Camilla & Stav

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

Non notable radio show. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labby, Camilla & Stav is listed separately for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubly non-notable list, because the show it relates to has been found to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable directory of guests on a non-notable show. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:05, 21 October 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) 04:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic transportation

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

Delete. Non-notable concept. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be just one event. Borock (talk) 06:06, 16 October 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) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Berkley

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

Non-notable photographer whose Google hits include Publishers Marketplace, Twitter, and other venues where she has posted information about herself. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:Single-purpose account, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. She has taken pictures of some notable people, but there is no such thing as "notability by association" on WP. Qworty (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she appears as a photographer on a lot of pages, but I do not see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: above, there is no such thing as "notability by association" on WP. I only wish this were true. Includability by association is rampant. We have Barbara Pierce Bush, Debbie Rowe, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I haven't found any major write-ups or interviews with her, there are multiple non-self references to her quality as an author photographer, including Neil Gaiman referencing her as such. Not sure how much that's worth, but there you are..... 67.183.109.104 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I take a picture to someone notable, it doesn't makes me notable. Berkley fails notability. Diego Grez (talk) 15:28, 16 October 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, per CSD G4. Nakon 04:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Maravilla

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

Seems to be a copy of content previously deleted at Maravilla, the version before the disambiguation page I created. La Maravilla had itself been a disambiguation page, but this edit by an IP readded deleted content. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla (4th nomination). Since the disambiguation page is now at Maravilla, and there is now only one article called "La Maravilla" (the novel; the album has been deleted), there seems no point in having La Maravilla revert to being a disambiguation page. Purple backpack89 06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. It is interesting, but really it is Unsourced. Other sites are picking up this content, and we have no way of telling whether the facts are accurate or not. Certainly the author seems to know what he or she is talking about, but we must have Verifiability, as it says at the bottom of each editing screen. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not exactly sure why this was re-listed, as no one has voted to keep and it relates to several other past deletion discussions. If I had prodded, it would be gone by now Purple backpack89 04:45, 21 October 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Paraná

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

this appears to be a not notable football tournament played in a Spanish speaking country...cannot find reliable sources on google 4twenty42o (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, it's not from a Spanish-speaking country. It's from Brazil (they speak Portuguese). And it is notable. Needs expansion and references. Diego Grez (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a notable football cup, as the winner of this tournament is automatically qualified to the Copa do Brasil and to the Campeonato Brasileiro Série D (see 2010 Copa do Brasil and 2009 Campeonato Brasileiro Série D). --Carioca (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Carioca, one of Wikipedia's experts on Brazilian football, says, this is a notable competition. Giant Snowman 20:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carioca. Cups which provide entry to the Copa do Brasil are notable. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider the first round of next year's Copa do Brasil. Matthew_hk t c 10:11, 21 October 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VIVA (Liqueur)

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources to show the notability of this product. Back in August I proposed deletion of this, and whilst it has been cleaned up to remove the promotional stuff, it still lacks any references other than the website. I've run various Google searches, and can't find anything other than promotional mentions and non-reliable sources; I can't find any newspaper articles or anything. Chzz ► 09:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found that are not self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 16 October 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 A7 delete. No prejudice against re-creation, but notability was not asserted. It's a mall. Or, rather, it was a mall. Frank | talk 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Mountain Plaza Mall

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

From the PROD: Fails notability at WP:NOTNEWS (Item #4). This unsourced article is a news item of local (unknown village, town, city, county, country) interest only. Eeekster (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Already marked for speedy. Non-notable WP:ORG failure which appears unlikely to be addressed in the near future. A shopping mall does not automatically fall under the conventions for places. Fæ (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fae, can you point me to a consensus, a discussion to bolster your claim about lack of automatic notability? I don't disagree with you, I'd just like to know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This falls under the conventional Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which states "Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to survive AfD." You will note that I said "not automatically" as a mall (which has a literal and historical definition as a covered part of a street) might be notable for reasons of documented social impact or historic importance (all the normal Notability guidelines apply) but they are not an exception to the general policy. This is my understanding but I'm open to re-interpretation in this area as what appears common-sense does not always turn out to be the consensus for places. My inclusion of ORG as a rationale is due to malls are not always the same thing as their location - most modern shopping malls are organizations in their own right and may be located in a geographic place (which may have another title) but are subject to re-branding, take-overs, mergers and de-mergers as per any other type of company. When we see articles about malls this tends to be the interpretation being used (hence WP:ORG must apply) compared to the historic interpretation of the mall being a place (such as the Pall Mall which is the probable model for all later "malls" (according to the OED)). Fæ (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fae, this is very useful--thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spray foam rigs

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

Blatant WP:ESSAY and how-to article. — Timneu22 · talk 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir to spray foam, although that to is badly in need of editing. To me, the Parent topic would be notable as a common construction method/material and should be where application devices are discussed. If not merged then Delete, by themselves they are not notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey City Writer's Workshop

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Turkey City Writer's Workshop

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

There is no in-depth third party coverage as required by WP:NOTABILITY. Also, notability is not inherited. All details come from a roadrunner.com personal home page which is not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The workshop has not only fostered the careers of numerous authors, but also created a document used by many writers workshops as a springboard. Quotes by Bruce Sterling & Michael Swanwick indicate the workshop served to help foster the cyberpunk genre. Shsilver (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't see the earlier version of this page, but it now has cites from established sources such as SFWA. A very long running workshop that fostered such big names as Bruce Sterling is a notable piece of literary history. It would be nice to see this entry grow instead of disappear. Madamecp (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This entry, like many Wikipedia articles on science fiction, brings together information on a topic that many people are aware of but unversed in, and the info in it is of interest to researchers and others, especially the list of writers. The "Turkey City Lexicon" has been passed from writer-to writer and writing-group-to-writing-group for at least 25 years, and probably deserves its own entry, as it has influenced hundred of SF writers. Furfish (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)furfish[reply]
Delete no coverage in gnews [23]. and note 2 of the references are its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references are third-party relevant sources. Gnews is not a particularly good measure of notability for this type of subject; try gbooks instead: [24]. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have you actually looked at those books? As far as I can tell, each book has a single mention and no in-depth coverage of the subject. I looked through those before nominating the article for deletion. If even one had had several pages about the subject, I'd not have submitted the nomination. Yworo (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered in multiple, independent RS. The Bruce Sterling piece is a usable self-published source per WP:SPS, since he's an expert in the field. Lack of gnews indicates a lack of popularity, but influence within a specific domain (e.g., science fiction writers) can establish notability absent popularity. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 21 October 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis Jesus theory

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

Notability questionable; no reliable references provided. Possibly but not obviously a hoax. I declined to CSD as a G3 (hoax). Frank | talk 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, man Even if not a hoax, it's original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable, unwikified original essay. Blech. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, questionable "sources".Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are of question origin, otherwise is WP:OR, likely is a hoax. Yousou (report) 12:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of a hoax and no reliable sources given. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with predictions of WP:SNOW. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite a hoax, but certainly a mess of original research. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hokum. Hairhorn (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and maybe a hoax too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 21 October 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 Murderdolls. Redirecting as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Please do not revert the redirect without sourcing the article. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racci Shay

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

Unsourced BLP, Seems non notable other then brief involvement with several bands. I see no notability that can not be handled with a redirect to one of the bands. I looked for sources other than doing some touring be listed as the member of several bands I see nothing to indicate notability. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, no real notability to merit a separate article. NZ forever (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - WP:MUSIC 6, is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. its even stated in afd summary. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aisha9152 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:MUSIC #6 and is worthy of a humorous anecdote and photo in Pamela Des Barres's book: Let's Spend the Night Together: Backstage Secrets of Rock Muses and Supergroupies. (WARNING: You may encounter an explicit image in the middle of the section that talks about Shay!) Location (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Iacomella

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. he may sit on several boards but there is no evidence of significant coverage. 6 gnews hits [25], 3 hits in gbooks [26] and 3 hits in gscholar [27]. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think he is a member of the faculty at any university. This case should be judged by the GNG, not WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I found that looked like it might apply towards WP:GNG was this news story, but it mentions him only trivially. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable person User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with David Eppstein, there is nothing close to sufficient here for any standard of notability. It might be worth having a look at Gleducar, where the subject of this BLP has been an active editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 23 October 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) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uber Agency

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

Spam. WholeEarth (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Rewrite Was made by an SPA. Tone is definitely not encyclopedic. They may be relevant if they have the revenue they claim. They are listed in that article that is referenced, I don't know if that is considered a reliable source or not. Seems perhaps more in need of a rewrite to me. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, can't establish notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have done the source hunt. Found mentions in Campaign magazine: [28], [29], [30] and the ref in the article: [31]. Design Week reports one story (fully accessible here), a mention in the Yorkshire Evening Post and one in The Independent. None of these are more than mentions and aren't sufficient to show notability. Moreover, the only verifiable information we can state is that Uber is a Sheffield-based ad agency who have won a few awards. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORP. Having tried to find sources, I will ask OSborn to reconsider. Bigger digger (talk) 00:33, 16 October 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. A merge proposal can continue on the article's talk page, but consensus is in favor of keeping the content. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines; article is self-promoting Nytewing07 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Ancient astronauts. I've already added templates suggesting the merge. -- BenTels (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable to me. -- Nytewing07 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: subject is notable enough to warrant a separate article. --emerson7 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I think this gentleman's work is a steaming pile of horse manure, he seems to have achieved a certain level of notability on pseudo-science TV shows. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ancient astronauts. There doesn't seem to be much to this biography (e.g. no personal details) except his work related to that subject. Location (talk) 17:28, 18 October 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 Lock up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lock-ups

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

Seems to be non-notable toy, was a redirect before being edited changed from that by an ip. Found a couple on Ebay but no entries on the web at all The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require the administrators' deletion tool in order to revert back to the version that was a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

simply turning it back into a redirect seems not the right when that change was over three years ago. If it happened in the Last 72 hours i would probably revert it but when its been here three years? No better to do an AFD. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn back into a redirect. No notability asserted, no sources. JIP | Talk 13:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation page. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dab page lock up. Several items there are more likely targets for this common phrase, which as such should not be deleted. Wanted to preserve the text but the purported link to manufacturer "Kidco" actually points to a movie of that name. I generally favor keeping brand names but there is no place for either of them without sources. JJB 02:12, 22 October 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 Corsham. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heywood Preparatory School

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

Very small private primary school. has not been in existence very long and does not appear to have achieved anything noteworthy. PROD was removed by creator without comment or significant improvement. Sources are only directory listings and the Ofsted report. Article fails WP:GNG and is possibly WP:SPIP. Primary schools have no defacto notability for automatic inclusion in the encyclopedia. Kudpung (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Corsham. Elementary schools are not generally independently notable, and this one seems no exception. Edison (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will go along with any suggestion to merge às this is our usual procedure in such cases, if it is possible.--Kudpung (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corsham. This is usually the best solution for local facilities. This claims to take children from 3 to 11, rather than 13 as usual for prep schools. This is thus a private primary school. State primary schools are usually merged to their village or town; and the sam policy should be followed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this had been a PROD the article would have gone by now.I think we have a consensus to merge, so I suggest merging what can be used to Corsham, and leaving a redirect as per our standard procedure for primary schools. I will do this if there are no objections.--Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 16 October 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hays

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

Unable to find independent WP:RS indicating that the subject meets our basic notability requirements. Nor does the subject's work meet additional criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage on his charity CD is restricted to local coverage, that's great that he's an active member of the community working to make it better, but it's not enough to meet notability. As an author, I cannot find any substantial coverage of his work beyond these results for a book he co-authored. Three articles spread over two papers. Taken together, that's not sufficient for me to say he meets our inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment as well that all the above news cites do appear to be about Bob Delmonteque, with Hays mentioned only as a hired writer. Delmonteque would seem to be encyclopedically notable, actually. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes it does appear that way, but with the article behind pay walls, it is difficult to assess the content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 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.

^ [Brian Garrity, New York Post, “Film Film $hoot”,Tuesday, June 12, 2007]
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival Wikipedia

[1] [Brian Garrity, New York Post, “Film Film $hoot”,Tuesday, June 12, 2007]

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival Wikipedia