The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though a citation from Blade magazine has been promised, it doesn't seem to have actually been found. As Mike said, this article has had three years, plus the seven days since being nommed for deletion. Consensus shows that, although there may be one citation somewhere, as it stands now this article should be deleted. If needed, I am willing to userfy for someone to try to improve it. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 00:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Originally placed through PROD and contested post-deletion. Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE As coordinator of Wikiproject:Cutlery I try to improve, source, and cleanup every knife, blade, sword, and knifemaker article on wikipedia. Being an avid collector of knives and swords for 35 years and an Honorary Guild Member; I have never heard of Mr. Ross. I have a veritable library of knife related books going back over 200 years and an enormous archive of cutlery publications going back to the 1960s: (American Blade, Blade Magazine, Knives Illustrated, Fighting Knives, Tactical Knives, Knife Trade) and newsletters from the Knifemakers' Guild, American Blade Smith Society, Randall Knife Collectors Association, Case Collectors Club, Emerson Collectors Club, etc. I went through every written source there is. I even checked the gun magazines and books. I can find no mentionof Mr Ross. I am sure he made some nice knives and leather in his day, but simply nothing of note has ever been published about him. Beyond that, even if he were mentioned in an issue of Blade, he appears to have left no legacy upon the cutlery world. As much as I hate to vote to delete the hard work of others or even a piece that is knife-related, I cannot support keeping this article unless verifiable sources ensuring his notability can be found. When trying to "save" the article last time, the only two sources that were reliable indicated that the man was born and that he died.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to back up the claims in the article, neither about leathersmithing nor about knives. Only Wikipedia mirrors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time to be able to aquire citations. Being from the 50's. 60's and 70's ...it will take a bit to aquire them. T. Kiefer Davis Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've had three years to do that and it wasn't done. I've scoured the internet and my personal library as mentioned above to try to improve this thing and found nothing. I wish you luck, all the same.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I may have had 3 years but the only 2 citations needed that were on the original post were his death, which I did cite, and Jimmy Lile, which I posted his website and was told I can't do that because it was Glorifying. Look ... I'm doing good to be able just to send an email. I don't know all this "code" stuff that you want me to insert. I find it sad that a regular person is not allowed to put something on Wikipedia unless they know how to write some kind of code. They even want a citation for the P.R.C.A. ... like it doesn't exist.
I have the Blade magazine where he is featured. I have all sorts of pictures where he received awards from the R.C.A. and news stories of the same. Do I scan those and post the pictures? Someone PLEASE just talk to me like I'm 6 (without all the "code talk") and tell me what I'm supposed to do and how to do it. Like I said before, the history of the R.C.A. and old time rodeo is fading.
Your own administrator posted this:
Hello and thank you for participating in Wikipedia. It looks like you got a pretty rough welcome! The standard mantra is Don't bite the newbies but that's theory and not always practice. But it looks like you've survived the onslaught and so has your article on Finney Ross. As an administrator, I am able to delete articles (and undelete them, even deleted articles are available to administrator accounts and deletion can be overturned) and in my evaluation, the article did not deserve deletion. But as I noted, it needed cleanup the the tone was inappropriately glorifying. User Dominik92 (talk · contribs) has already done an extensive cleanup: he has removed much of the material but this does not mean that you can't re-add it if you do so carefully and if you make sure that the article remains neutral in tone. Also, it's always good to make sure that most (if not all) of the material included is properly sourced so that it can be verified by other readers. I've also added categories to the article, which means there's a greater chance that others will access it and possibly help in its development. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem a little brash, but Mike, unless you have gone to the library and gone through micro films, you have not done the research needed for this article. You have merely searched the internet. Not everything of importance is on the internet, although I know of plenty of people that firmly believe that if it's not on the internet, it didn't exist or happen. Mike, I appreciate you being a cutlery aficinato, but you are far from a vintage rodeo expert.
So to the point: Do I go to the libraries and print out all the stories about him, then scan them (along with all the info and pictures that I have) and post them on this article? Someone PLEASE just tell me in simple English, how to go about doing this?
Thanks, T. Kiefer Davis Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Blade, what is the volume, issue, month, year, pages the article is on, title of the article, and author of the article. You don't need to scan it, we can assume good faith, but that other information will proove what you are saying, although one article in Blade is not enough to address notability. As far as having to go look up microfilm or microfiche, that really does raise questions of notability. No, I have not "merely searched the internet", as I wrote earlier...I have a personal library of several hundred books on knives and knifemaking. I have boxes of knife magazines going back to the 1960s. MR Ross aint in any of them...I can honestly say I've been written about in more magazines than this guy! This was brought to my attention because he was listed as a knifemaker. One who only made knives for two years, at that. As for what you did before regarding sources...you linked to the Jimy Lile site. Well that might be ok if you were citing an article on Jimmy Lile, not this guy, and furthermore the Lile website contains no mention of Ross, not even a picture. Nobody is asking for a cite to prove the PRCA exists, but to prove that this guy actually made stuff for them or whatever his relationship is. Your links and cites earlier had no mention of Ross it was like you were just saying the other stuff existed. If the sources were there, you'd be finding me writing "Strong Support", but as to this point in time, you have not demonstrated his notability. I find it curious that no modern saddlery books mention him either for what you are claiming regarding his impact, hell William Scagel died 20 years before Finney and they still write things about him. Bottom line if it's a book you get the title, author, publisher, isbn, page numbers where he is mentioned, where book was published. magazine: title of article, journal in which it appeared, volume, pages, issie, author, same with newspaper only you'd need day and date. This isn't rocket surgery and no one is asking you to write code. I'll help you out with formatting the sources, myself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You state: "As far as having to go look up microfilm or microfiche, that really does raise questions of notability."
Nothing NEW has been written about thousands of notable people. But they are still here on Wikipedia.
Like I stated, this was the 50's, 60's and 70's. So a few minutes ago, I went to the Houston Post where he was written about for 20 years, and it's been absorbed into the Houston Chronicle. I went to their site to pull up archived stories and it will only allow you to search back to 1985. http://search.chron.com/chronicle/archiveSearch.do Same with the Dallas Morning News and many more major and minor newspapers around Texas and Oklahoma.
I understand your hesitation about his knife business as he did not have a long legacy in that venue. But as far as the R.C.A. is concerned, I will not relent.
I was there during his entire leathersmithing career. From the first saddle's presented to Casey Tibbs for "All 'Round Cowboy" in 1951 to Jim Shoulders when Jim won his first "All 'Round Cowboy" championship in 1956 (and a slew of others) including Larry Mahan who is still living and speaks of Ross's works to this day. Many of the old cowboys inducted into the Rodeo Cowboy Hall of Fame demanded Ross's works. Do we need letters from them?
The most famous picture of Jim Shoulders, shows Ross's bull rope, flank strap and chaps made for Jim. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paregien.net/Articles/Shoulders-Jim/1957-Shoulders-Jim%252002.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.paregien.net/Articles/Shoulders-Jim/JimShoulders.html&usg=__l6krVrrMauUL2XgiZezn4UjULeY=&h=359&w=300&sz=37&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=AXywvnh0AxHLpM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=104&ei=LESfTcq5LcPPiALN4rjxAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djim%2Bshoulders%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4GGLJ_enUS248US248%26biw%3D1166%26bih%3D500%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=578&oei=LESfTcq5LcPPiALN4rjxAg&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=78&ty=91
Scroll down and you'll see Jim on Ross's bareback saddle and flank strap. (Not to be confused with a saddle bronc saddle).
See Ross's works and chaps on "Tornado" when Freckles Brown rode the un-ridable bull in 1967 with a score of 99.
The list is endless from Oklahoma to Texas for 30 years. Even making chaps and protective breast plates for famous "Clowns" (today known as bull-fighters in the rodeo arena) such as Jacko Garrett. Garrett was the only clown in the R.C.A. known to protect his fallen rider by jumping body first onto the face of the bull, wrapping his legs around the bulls nose and his arms around the bulls neck. This action caused the full weight of Garrett to be hanging from the bulls head, which tired the bull in a matter of seconds.
Ross was also a prolific rancher raising prized Polled Herefords (Herefords with no horns) and Quarter Horses. He was featured in Western Horseman and American Quarter Horse Magazines. He was the owner of "Whizoto" the number one quarter horse stud in 1959 with a "Live Foal" stud fee of $5,000.00. He sold Whizoto at the Haymaker Sale in Oklahoma in 1961 for $100,000.00. I didn't put this information in the article because I felt it wasn't relevant.
I have been honest, respectful and courteous with you. You in turn have used unacceptable language with me, i.e. "hell William Scagel", and berated me by telling me "this isn't Rocket Surgery".
I don't know if your need to berate people and use language that isn't necessary fills some sort of void for you. But you felt the need to do it, none-the-less.
So again I will ask you POLITELY, if archives only go back to 1985, how am I to verify this information? The boxes of newspaper and magazine articles I have are cut out. In the 50's and 60's that's what people normally did, cut out the article and paste them inside a scrap book. Like I said, I can scan them and post them.
I still have his 2 year "waiting list" for knives. (A mediocre knife maker does not have a 2 year waiting list.) But like I said, I'm not concerned with the knife making part being kept on Wikipedia.
T. Kiefer Davis Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response. First, please put your new comments at the bottom of the page; that way, all readers can follow the discussion.
Second, if I understand correctly, this article may be what Wikipedia classifies as original research: that is, "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists", including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Wikipedia doesn't publish original research (see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; we collect and organize what other reliable sources (such as newspapers and books) have to say on the subject. In other words, while Finney Ross may have indeed made many beautiful leatherworks for notable rodeo stars, we can't have a Wikipedia article based on just that. What we're looking for are books and articles about Finney Ross and his career. The sources don't have to be online. If there are articles like that in the scrapbook, what we need to know are the names and dates of the newspapers, and what they say. But we can't create an article based only on pictures of people using his works (especially if, as with the Jim Shoulders picture, Ross isn't mentioned by name). I hope this is helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not berating you or disrespecting you. I do apologize if you were offended by the use of my term "H-E-Double Hockeysticks", but to take a "rocket surgery" quote out of context is a bit much; then again some people have no sense of humor and cannot tell when someone is merely trying to lighten the mood; in otherwords if a broken down former boxer/Marine/cowboy like myself can do this stuff, ANYONE can do it. A two year wait on a custom knife is nothing, Randall Made Knives are production pieces and their wait right know is pushed out to 2016(that's 5 years for a factory-made knife). Makers such as Ernest Emerson and Ken Onion have waiting times in excess of 10 years. William F. Moran's, Jimmy Lile's, and Bob Loveless' waiting list were well in excess of that. I know a maker and Guild member who has a 5+ year wait, makes some of the most beautiful folding knives I've ever seen, has had numerous factory collaborations, writeups in 10 times the number of knife magazines that Ross may have ever had, and he has to work at WalMart to feed his family and get health insurance. All that said, if you have stuff related to his knifemaking ability, bring it forward. If your scrapbook has the required information on his saddlery, let's see it...now I don't mean to literally scan it and post it, but provide the names of where you got it, who wrote it, when/where it was published, etc. Just like Arxiloxos says above, this is not the venue for original research. Again, I will be more than happy to change my vote and format your sources if you wish as long as you provide reliable third party references. Was there an obituary published about him? That may be a good starting point as obits on notable people tend to contain a good basic overview of their life's work and if published in a newspaper are a reliable source in and of themselves. I don't mean a two-liner "Beloved father, devoted husband and successful cattleman who ran a leathershop", but one that's several paragraphs in length. We're here to help you, but if you insist on throwing up barriers to sourcing your own article and its claims, there's not much we can do to help you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arxiloxos,
My apologies, I didn't know replies are to go at the bottom. Thank you for your input. It makes more sense to me now. Here is what I will do. I will remove all reference to Ross being a knife maker. As I said, that was such a small part of his venue. Thus ends the debate on that subject.
Dude, you said you have a Blade article on him; that's a source, that's enough to say he was a knifemaker. If you can give me that much, you can include it, especially if he learned from Lile; I think you're missing the point.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, I will go through 30 years of articles, and post what I find with the name of the source and the date. I know for a fact that those are all posted with each article, i.e. "Houston Post Feb. 1, 1950".T. Kiefer DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that part is done for you, you just need to post it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me time for this. Since your FIRST administrator told me the article was good (see above) and he was allowing it to stay, I did not know there was more to be done until this debacle.T. Kiefer DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was one questionable source saying Ross was dead, that's definitely not enough.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, suffering for many years from Aphasia due to a brain injury, your response of "anyone" can do this can sometimes be totally untrue. Never assume. It takes me hours to compose an email. A lot of the time I have my wife write as I "try" to verbalize and dictate. So no, Mike, not everyone can do this.T. Kiefer DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK call me a liar, I don't really care; just don't waste my time is all I ask.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your attitude Mike. I explain to you that I have a brain injury and you take it as an attack on your character? As far as your decision to go through 30 years of Blade magazine and me wasting your time, that's a bit of an oxymoron don't you think? I'll be happy to find it in the trunks I have, and give you the exact magazine, with page number. It's the only full magazine I saved because it was the issue with Stallone on the cover.
I'm gettin weary of this rediculous battle with you. I honestly don't understand your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagedirtbiker (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that issue...June 1983, just need title of the article, author and page number; thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked in google books and on google.com and saw nothing. Are we missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can tell. I, too searched google books, news, and everything on line where I found nothing at all beyond wikimirrors. I checked through all my Knife mags and books during the time this guy was alive and came up blank. Then I went to the old issues of Gun Digest...zip. The only other Ross Leather company I know of is out of South Africa and they make holsters. I found 2 other Ross Saddlery Companies, one in Indiana (Incorporated since 1959), the other in Kansas. The article's creator claims he has an issue of BladeMagazine that mentions Ross as a knifemaker, I asked for the article title, author, and page numbers and have not heard back. He claims he has a disability, so it might take him a while. Find-a-Grave has some info, but it is not considered a reliable source. This article should have been Speedied, It sat for over 3 years with no sources, had a Prod tag for a while and was ressurected from deletion with still no meaningful work done to it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mike's argument and research. We all do something with our lives, there's nothing to it - frankieMR (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mike above. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to List of Aquaman enemies. Most NN fictional elements of notable franchises should be merged into an appropriate list of some sort, and this is no exception. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Aquaman enemies for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks any real world reception to meet WP:NOTJUSTPLOT, and not enough coverage in third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not assert notability, could not find much information Ng.j (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless I'm reading WP:ATHLETE#Cricket and WP:CRIN wrong, players appearing in at least one major cricket match, as Turner did, are presumed notable. BryanG (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" From WP:CRIN: "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article asserts its own non-notability. Clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this article passes any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks very much as if this is an autobiography of a non notable musician. Many of the refs are blogs. Fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content appears to be from one editor, most likely the subject. Most of the references do not make sense. Ng.j (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still many grammar and WP:PROMO issues. Many of the links are offline and hard to verify, and I have not seen how the artist meets WP:Notability (music) specifically. Part of my problem with WP:PROMO is that the subject/author is trying so hard to have a page. If he is truly notable, there would have been more editors on the page, whether they are fans or not. Most artists have at least one or two rabid fans who will dig up every little thing and put it on their page. Nothing inherently notable on the page, just a bunch of little things some guy has done.Ng.j (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar and WP:PROMO (which specific parts of the article do you see as promotional?) are not grounds for deleting a page; they can be dealt with, for example by using the guidelines WP has for WP:COI (as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, this issue will not go away if the decision is "keep", but he will have to live with sticking to the COI guidelines. He is not "trying so hard to have a page", at least not any more after I explained the notability guidelines (are you basing this judgement on his asking for help on "saving the page"?). He is certainly trying his best to address all the specific concerns, and now you're using that against him? Note that he has mostly restored the page to perhaps a state closer to what it was in before he tried his (unfortunately for him, pretty inept; he is still not using some of the basics. But again, that is not a reason to delete the article) hand in it (or if you consider the actual version of that page to be better than what is currently there, we can always revert it to that state). "There would have been more editors" is not a criterion according to the notability guidelines. Or if it is, please point me to it. It may not be immediately obvious from the article, but his work has been featured at the Institute of Contemporary Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. I'm not sure if that isn't grounds for notability as an artist alone (I know practically nothing about art, do you?). And I am pretty sure he just has to demonstrate notability in one of the many areas he works in; I'm sure his police work also fails to demonstrate notability. Perhaps he needs to improve the lead to more clearly show this, but please WP:AGF; he has shown no reason not to. I think we can all agree that he is neither Picasso nor Mick Jagger, but neither is he an obscure dilletant. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to help the subject of the article to get involved in the discussion. I have pointed out WP:COI (which is not directly relevant to this discussion, but must be addressed afterwards if the decision is "keep"), but he is very new to WP. Please take User_talk:141.91.129.7#Kommissar_Hjuler_deleted.3F into account if he doesn't learn to discuss the matter here. I'm hoping I can teach him. I have no interest in the matter itself other than helping a new user. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NEW COMMENT: Kommissar Hjuler & Mama Baer are contemporary artists, working in several fields (music, painting, mixed media), well known in the European "middle class art scene" - there is no need to delete the side!
Brca 17:19, 8 April 2011
Comment I can understand NG.j. 's decision, for sure now, thanks for the help by Nczempin to safe the article.Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am now convinced that the subject is definitely notable for an article. Some of the references are hard to deal with, but they will be dealt with. The article has improved considerably AFAICS, the WP:COI author (he didn't start the article, only modified it, probably a bit too much) is very open to doing everything to comply with WP policies and guidelines, but he is still very inexperienced. Note that I did not decide to "save" the article, I only decided to help a newbie user with the harsh wind that sometimes blows across the WP waters. A lot of issues still remain; in the medium term, it is probably best if User:Kommissar Hjuler keeps his involvement with the article to a minimum. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reason now, thanks for help, as mentioned, I am new hereI am Komiissar Hjuler, well I looked at the notability list for musicians: My comments to the points 1. quite a lot of albums, listet at Discogs or reviewed at magazines, most famous "fan" of our music is Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth, who recommended us in an interview he gave for Arthur Magazine, sometime ago he wrote a track for us called Schwarze Police, this tracks was released as split release at Goaty, Kommissar Hjuler und Frau/Thurston Moore Schwarze Polizei, I refer to this and to other releases on the site here. 2., 3. Our music is far from any chart music, but THE WIRE (magazine) voted a CD by us, asylum lunaticum (Intransitive Rec., USA), to belong to the best 15 albums of the year 2009 in experiment/outsider music, I refer to this as well. 4. for some albums we made coverage tours, for the last one on Ulramarine we have a tour with seven concerts at UK, starting at Cafe Oto, London, 15th of April, I refer to all this as well. 5 We released at independent labels, but some excist for years and have a wide amount of releases. 6. we played with several groups and artists together, some have their account here, like Eugene Chadbourne. 7. www.kunstaspekte.de expects us to create a new form of happening, I refer to this as well 8. this will never happen, I woin a small price in art and got mentioned in a book,refered to it as well, 9. no 10. radios play us, a rdaio at Wisconsin once played only our music for a complete weekend, my wife is at womens radio, and WFMU has played a lot of our music and we are soon present at a CD by them 11, 12. we hope, this will come one day, the WDR III (televion) was at our place for an interview in 2006, but they did not send it at TV, they sent a radio special instead at Radio1, Nordrheinwestfalen, Offener Kanal made a special on us, sent here at local TV, also at a TV special for local TV at Kiel, sent all over Schleswig-Holstein, this special we also show at our website.
Beside this I work as artist with several exhibition, to be with an article at music file is reasonable to me, but the article was originally written by someone else, I simply added some facts, well, ...
And I still do not know who decides whether or not an article gets deleted, thanks for the help so far!
First Time I discuss here. As mentioned, I am Kommissar Hjuler, and therfor astonished about the idea, that information here is a fake. I am not sure, who decides that an articles is removed. I tried to find enough references outside my website or private website. I did not know that blogs are not allowed, but some sides today only excist as blogs, our mostly spred interview was at artlout:com issue 04:08, this intervied idi only excists at the www., was never printed, this is an online magazine, but I was told, the articles was red more than a millin times by the magazine. So any blogs could be good references today, I thought. There is a lot of printed magazines that refer to us, mama baer and Kommissar Hjuler (or Kommissar Hjuler und Frau).
We can be regarded as musicians and as artists,we combine everything, music is art and art can be music. We started as musicians only in 1999, now have about 20 LP/CD contracts, gave lot of concert, but since 2005/6 even more work as artists, some exhibitions, and performances are often regarded as art instead of music, allthoug some were at music only festivals.
I am not used to the rules of writing articles, I am sorry for this, I will ot cause any trouble to any Users her.
At the moement I need some help, to get the artcile here safed from any deletion.
I hope Kommissar Hjuler as musician and as artist fits to the notability for music-related topics regulation. I gave a statement on these points two comments before, but possibly I am non-notable, then I have to live with this, haha.
So Kommissar HGjuler is User 87.122.41.46 ? I am learning every day a bid more. Anyway, I did not want to violate any rules, just discuss, what you mean on the article.
Comment This article is the best example I could ever dream up to explain why subjects should not write their articles about themselves. The conflict of interest issues are so tightly woven through every paragraph that the article itself is not salvageable. Literally every line would have to be rewritten. The subject himself may very well be notable (my gut says he is) but the citations are so botched, so flooded with non-reliable sources, it makes the task impossible to perform. This really needs to be userfied and rewritten by someone INDEPENDENT of the subject, but I'm refraining from !voting because this autobiographical subject may be notable but a dreadful mess to verify. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Userfying sounds like a good idea. I don't see a problem in putting it in User: Kommissar Hjuler userspace; I volunteer to guide him to learn more about WP, how to avoid COI etc. First thing he should do is actually log in regularly before posting, otherwise my willingness to help will diminish to almost zero. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking as someone who has spent a great deal of my life as a performing musician, I feel I can speak with some authority when I say that it is very, very difficult for any artist to be objective about themselves. While a large ego is virtually required to be an artist, it isn't so great for writing autobiographies. I don't envy you :) Dennis Brown (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, it may very well turn out that the best way to proceed in the medium term is for him to stay off the article, but for now he needs some basic skills to participate in the discussion. I am trying not to get involved on either side. We could also revert the recent changes he made (he said that someone else created the article and he only recently started editing himself, which seems to be backed up by a cursory glance at the history). -- Nczempin (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "big ego" makes the artist, haha, I guess I will shorten the complete article to some basic info, not sure, what to do, possibly the first article by someone else was enough info,
Comment Hello Gene93k! I took a look at those artists and those musicians at both lists and have to say, that nearly all are possibly well-known at their areas, but I could not find references for them to be known worldwide. I calm down a bid, a bid only, when I see the "other nominees" at the lists, for we worked worldwide in art and in music, in both categories, on nearly all continents, I hope I will overcome the problem with the references, but I get good help here. And on this article a good discussion is in progress, Users discuss, I cannot really see this for most of the other articles at both categories. I am astonished that only that few artists and musicians are at the lists. One is easily able to create a Users account as artist or musician, one can as easily write articles. A lot of people write their own articles, I am supposed. But mainly it is not recognized. In a way stupid for me to write as User KOmmissar Hjuler at an article called Kommissar Hjuler. If we were able to load up any music by us at an artcile, the article would have been deleted by all users! I was kidding, I am astonish how obvious the Users work here. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some parts, in a way it was too much info on that side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommissar Hjuler (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Brca mentioned, we are only middle class artists, no need to have that much info here on us, haha! Thank a lot agian for all support. I will do my best to keep all rules better in mind for the future. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of information per se is not the issue, as long as it is supported by reliable sources, and the other guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:BLP, WP:COI (and a whole load of other WP guidelines, sorry if that seems overwhelming) are observed. Some of the most important general ones are WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE -- Nczempin (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I have just seen the article for the first time, and it needs a lot of work (just from seeing the lead and Table of Contents). Again, I volunteer to help get the article in minimum shape to demonstrate notability (as far as that's possible), avoid COI and then perhaps put it through WP:AfC scrutiny. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what a userfy process would entail, but I would suggest leaving a stub with the most basic info, then work with User:Kommissar Hjuler on WP:COI, and then help him with a page that would pass WP:AfC muster (though not necessarily actually going through the process). Or we could do all the above except the stub, as long as it's clear that the page can be reinstated once it meets minimum requirements. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above reasoning (I hadn't !voted previously...). This can be made into an article, just not with the current information and needs a complete rewrite, which Nczempin has graciously offered to do. Subject appears to be notable, and will make an interesting and valid article when complete, after a 100% rewrite on this BLP. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the complete overhaul that now makes it clear that a keep would be appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes I now do.
The references at the file short films mainly only are external links, I think it is more reliable simply to remove them, a friend of mine here only has two references and is reliable for the complete article.Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is a version one can keep here, please read this text and tell me, what I can do better. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article now is much shorter as at the point I started my account at Wikipedia and now hopefully fits the rules. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mama Baer is supposed that 5 photos are too many photos, what do you mean, shall I dele some photos? need the advice of those older Users.Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of photos has no bearing on the deletion discussion; it's better to discuss that question at the article's discussion page. The most important part is that WP:NOTABILITY needs to be clearly demonstrated. Other issues such as WP:COI and how to improve the article in general are secondary concerns until this deletion discussion is over. In fact, it may be a good idea to reduce your own comments on this deletion discussion page to only those that are concerned with the main objection by the submitter. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just was told by Keith A. Buchholz, that I am mentioned on the poster of fluxfest chicago, changed the reference to the fluxfest Chicago 2011, Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having followed the progression of this article and this AfD I agree with the comments of Dennis Brown. I would also agree with Nczempin that it may be best if the subject stays off the article! Therefore AfD withdrawn.Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that I am in contract with the terms of close connection, and so my KEEP cannot be regarded as a neutral point of view, but I get a lot of help from Users here, and was just told, that I am allowed to state this KEEP, so I state it. The conflict here between neutrality and notability leads to the following problem to me: If I would shorten the article to a basic info with really good references for the information, I will not appear as noteable, and if I put that information on it, that makes me notable, I am in trouble to make all the references.
At the talk side I gave statements to all points of the notability regularies by wikipedia, comments on each point, and Users reading this, might expect me to be notable. To bring all references can be hard, and for some events I need help to do all references. How can I bring references to the event at Mary Bauermeister's Place? Therefor I need your advice. We have been playing there, a video exists at YouTube, Mary Bauermeister gave a statement on our concert, she said in an interview (video) that she can not go conform with the sexuality we presented at the performance. We had a lot of discussion with her on this point of view. For artists/performance artists, her place is a holy room to perform at, an invitation is something special, for she only asks relevant artists to play there, every first Sunday each month, in the room with her husband's piano, the first Karlheinz Stockhausen piano. These concerts are even more private and personal events, the press could not focus on each concert every month again, I could present a photo at my site from event, if this works, because all information you find at the www is from interviews we gave, if anyone refers to this event, he refers to what I have told in an interview or did write at my website. Here I cannot refer to a video at youtube, this is a problem. There has not been a neutral viewer of our concert at he place, but there never was a neutral viewer for all her concerts. Noone asks, whether or not Nam June Paik has really played there, he made his first European concert at her rooms, but there was nearly no audience, we were told, the circumstances were by far the same, lateron this concert by him has become a fact to all who think about it, simply by the fact, that a lot of magazines wrote about it, for Mary and he stated, he has played there. Mary stated, that we have played there, and some magazines gave back my interbiew, that we have played there, but this is simply what I told them. Hope you see the problem. For other concerts always a program or a poster or catalogue exists, I can refer to these printed matters.
When I started editing this article, it was not that neutral tone it has now, not sure, who wrote it, but noone focussed on it and expected the article to be wrong information, although there were only few references. Concerning the original article here, only for the info this article gave on me, I was not relevant to wikipedia to become mentioned. But I always here that Mama Baer and I have an outut of music and art, that no other artists have. Every month we sign new LP/CD/MC contracs, have new perspectives in art, collaborate with new artists, we are expanding really fast. The original article did not give back this info, it was not mentioned, that we have become involved into NO!art, whic is a big step for us, we gave a lot of interviews, since we have become memberschip, for instanc ethe one by Kunstaspekte, and Kunstaspekte is the most relevant platform for art at Germany !It really is. To be named as artist at their website and to be reviewed is a reference to the artists, if galleries think about an exhibtion.
Anyone of you, who has to decide here, is free to give me his/her advice before giving a statement, the last days I tried my best to bring this article in a neutral view, that keeps me interesting enough for an article. And I will do it the way, as he/she states, all of you are more involved into wikipedia as I am. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank Nczempin for the time he offered and still offers. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I would ask any Users here, isn't Keith A. Buchholz a nioteable person for wikipedia, I saw a long artícle on Cecil Touchon, with whom I now work together by mail, also just have been invited to exhibit at the "museum" he runs in 2012, but to me Keith is as noteable. I am long time meber at OPEN FLUXUS, and keith is one of the most active artists in Fluxus of this time, involved in that lot of projects, crazy, that vthere is no article at him. It is easier to bring references for the existence of Cecil due to the Fluxus books, but if one sees blog activity, Keith is as notable, possibly someione here is interested to write about him. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My COI with the artcile on Kommissar Hjuler and on Mama Baer, my wife, is obvious to everyone, due to my Users name. I was not used to the rules here, but this was my fault, when starting an edit. The article here on my person was not showing all current information, I do not now the edititor, I found out about edit function, then added latest news on me. Only true news, but the references were not good, I learned about this as well in the last days. Wikipedia shall not be a promotional site for my person, it shall simply reflect the info on us, that is true. I now try to see from a distance, how to write down all info fitting to the rules. Everyone here shall test, if I am objective enough in my formulations, if not, I ask for your help instead of an deletion proecedere first. And I will listen to you and take any help I can get. The info here on us is true, so any suggestions by Users are helpful to me, to show in a distant view, that I am telling the truth.
I am supposed that a lot of artists are in COI with articles, for the system allowes anyone here to become a User and to work with texts. My User name is evident for the conflict, and I hope this shows you, that I was acting in good will for all changes, otherwise I would have called me different as a User. The system to me seemingly workt the way, that Users create artciles on subjects they new and like, so any user in a way has a COI, to me her it is evident.
Please discuss all points here that are important for me, to see, how I can handle best the COI, to get aware of it. I cannot get ware of it, but I possibly can show to you, that I can be objective. I am a police officer and I am used to being objective, especially when I am at the focus of people.
As mentioned at the talk about the notability, if I simply take away certain points here, I could become not relevant enought, not notable enough for an article here. I am supposed tha en.wikipedia is the correct platform for me and mama baer to be mentioned, we work all over the world at same time, we worked on all continents so far, we have contacts from several contries, not only from Germany, I would suggest that we work more outside Germany as inside germany. The one who once started the article on me here at en.wiki must have had this in mind.
So if you will comment here, please concider, that the information stated is correct, but that the terms of statement or refernce might be chosen in a wrong way.
I will do my best to be as neutral as possible.
One important thing: Possibly on is able to discuss the COI on the articles of Kommissar Hjuler and of Mama BAer at ONE TALK Side, not sure, if an Administrator can manage this. We are known in the same way, we often handle as one person, some performances we called ZWEI EINEPERSON or EINE ZWEIPERSON; because we always work together, also for our solo projects, we share all profiles like facebook, myspace, ..., we are really conected like a system.
Mama Baer's English is too bad, as if she could write her, so any comments are by me.
So, the facts are true, the way of refering to them might be completely wrong by me, and I need your help, to make best references.
Well, it certainly should not' be discussed here (in the deletion discussion. The best place to discuss your conflict of interest is your user page (where you should declare your COI) and your user talk page where people can discuss with you. In addition, when you want to make edits that go beyond simple obvious ones (like they are described in the WP:COI guidelines, you should request edits on the talk pages of the articles, such as Talk: Kommissar Hjuler and Talk: Mama Baer. -- Nczempin (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference No.12, a, o,
I am not sure, if the refernce No. 12 is a good reference, the artlout:com is an online magazine that provides monthly issues for download, at their website they state that issues were read by a million people, but how can one be sure about such terms stated. We have been one of the four title stories at issue 04:08, a long interview was presented, refering on some exhibitions, but not all exhibition were mentioned, and we had a lot after april 2008, but the exhitions up to that date were mentioned at the magazine. At europe the online magazine artlout is a recommended magazine, mainly read by art students, represented at german platforms of students, like www.studivz.com, or also at facebook. But not the good stand of www.kunstaspekte.de.
I simply do not know, how to make a good reference on the fact, that all the exhibition we have been involved are not a fake. Any artists have these problems. Is it okay to take away the artlout:com reference and simply to state, that programs or catalogues exist to the exhibitions and that we are mentioned at the wesbites of the galleries. We here have a big biox with al the printed matter, but if I shall refer to any printed matter, it would be along list of references, and I see not lists at other artists sites, Often there is stated, he gave a lot of concerts ... or he exhibition at lot of galleries ...
I am also in fear to put too much detailed info at the article, for this might cause a COI conflict again, it could be seen as promotion.
I also refer to the textcard No. 16, testcard at Ventil-Verlag is a recommended magazine for the German-speaking area, presenting articles by well-known authors, there is an article on the Ventil Verlag at de-wikipedia, also on Martin Büsser who run the Ventil Verlag. testcard it the only publication of the Ventil Verlag. Possibly the article on Mama BAer and Kommissar Hjuler this is not good enough as reference for en.wikipedia. As mentioned, I am now trying to find references good enough to show, that the article handles with facts.
So any good advice is welcome! Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a county surveyor is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Clarityfiend that "County Surveyor" is not a high enough political office to pass WP:POLITICIAN. In all honesty, I didn't know that surveyors were elected anywhere. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, otherwise this would become a giant directory of county surveyors and dog catchers. Brumak (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject is in the same category as county coroner, district animal control officer, county legislator, and county assessor - which may be elected but one of which are usually considered notable. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was revdelete but keep. An unusual problem sometimes requires an unusual solution. It seems this was created at least partially as a hoax, but it has now been fixed up and disputed/improper material removed. So, I've used revision deletion to remove all edits before those improvements from view. This is essentially the same effect as deleting but allowing immediate recreation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively an unreferenced BLP as the purported references (now removed but reviewable here:[3]) are dead links seemingly designed to deceive. Googling on the alleged news article titles get you nothing but the article itself which indicates that they are bogus, not just mislinked. There is an IMDB entry but that is not RS. I have no idea whether this is a complete hoax or whether there is some truth here but it sure as hell fails verifiability. The author's only other action has been to hoax the death of another actor using similar deceptive reference links, which makes it very hard to assume any good faith. DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how bizarre, good catch. He seems to have existed but I can't find much coverage in reliable secondary sources, so I think delete. I've removed the contentious material with false references from view for a start - it can be seen in the history if anyone needs to investigate further. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, given that the contributor seems to have deliberately falsified references, I don't see how we can trust any of the other information on the page - this is a rare case where assuming bad faith seems sensible. Some of the information is certainly true, but if Schilling were notable, someone would need to go through very carefully to check all the facts, and it might be better to start again from nothing at all than to start from this base of dubious truth. Anyway, at the moment he seems unnotable. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was going to delete, then I found all this [4] I think a Google Book search should be compulsory in AfDs. I don't approve of the editors other actions though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit the Google News search came up so empty that I neglected to do a Google Books search like I should have, and normally would have. These results do give us verifiability that the subject is real and of a lot of roles he played but I still worry that they are only list entries and do not give us the required material for a good biographical article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all those books seem to be just his name mentioned in long lists of actors in different programs. As far as I can see isn't any substantial depth of coverage there.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeh, I'm not sure the article should exist, but I just wanted to prove he was real. For importance comparison though I went to Two and a Half Men and found just as poor depth of coverage and actors of questionable importance there. Are there too many of these pages? J. D. Walsh and Jennifer Bini Taylor etc. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources found, I would like to see more in-depth coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific - what reliable sources? If you mean the google book search discussed above, I looked through the results and found barely a sentence about him in any of them, mostly just his name in a list - hardly substantial coverage.
Given the extremely dodgy circumstances of this article's creation (some pretty unpleasant material was included with falsified references), at the least I'd like to rewrite it using only what I can find in reliable sources - which at the moment is almost nothing. Currently the article even contains a direct quote from the actor which isn't referenced. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good case for deleting the whole article so that the fake content is removed from view in the history. This would be entirely without prejudice to the article being recreated later, even immediately, provided it is written from reliable sources. At the moment we don't have any references apart from IMDB which is not reliable. IMDB is user contributed content. Like Wikipedia, it can be hoaxed by malicious users or by users who relay false information in good faith. We can reliably reference the roles played using the Google Books links but not much else. Do we really know that the Personal Life section is anything more than made up? (I am going to go and delete that section and the unreferenced quote)
If we can get a reliably referenced stub out of this then I will be pleased but we do need a bit more than the sourced found so far. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also happy for this to deleted without prejudice as Daniel suggests.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that it could be better with more references, but for now, it's okay. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Strong?) - It does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:NACTOR. The keywords here are "SIGNIFICANT role" along with "in MULTIPLE NOTABLE films, tv shows..." a "one-hit wonder" with only 5 appearances in a single show and mutiple minor performances as well as mentions in "cast crew" credits do not seem encyclopedic enough. Although I believe that all actors that appeared on TV should deserve an article, wikipedia it not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it would also violate WP:BIO and the principles of what wikipedia is not.-- Loukinho (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wiktionary has had an article on this since 2008 so transwiki is not needed. I have however taken the liberty of re-creating it as a soft redirect to the Wiktionary article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best mention was a drive-by via the NYT. Not enough to be a "notable" expression, delete via wp:neo. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I expected to delete as a neologism, I found widespread discussion of this term. WP:NEOLOGISM says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." It seems that this term meets that standard. The Financial Post here wrote "The word recessionista -- originally a person who enjoys dressing fashionably on a budget -- has gained rapidly in currency and now embraces the worlds of dining, entertaining and beauty. It was declared the word of the week on the Macmillan Dictionary Web site last week and is one of the top fashion buzz words of 2009, along with its sibling "chiconomics," according to the Global Language Monitor." It has also been covered by Reuters here, CBS News here, the Times of India here, Wales Online here, the San Francisco Chronicle here, as well as in several other publications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for forgetting my signature. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment Those are interesting, but the question remains if that is enough to be considered 'significant' and permanent. I will leave that to the closing admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The leading definition of this term there has over 7,000 "votes" one way or the other, which indicates this may be less "non-notable" than I think it is. All the same, this is a stub dictionary definition of an unencyclopedic term. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As if the concept of dressing well on a budget was new in 2008! —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on recent items and stories in major papers, this is now notable. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The newspaper sources appear to be discussions of the concept of frugality – or as Tamfang puts it, "dressing well on a budget" – with subsidiary mention/definition of the word as a word. To me, this does not seem to satisfy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary's "major differences" criteria nor what we might think of as a "Thou exception". That is, there are some articles about words, but these are somewhat exceptional cases. Based on available sources, recessionista doesn't seem to rise to that level. Cnilep (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less an urban dictionary. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this. It is obviously notable, but there's not a lot else to say about the subject other than the definition, so it goes on Wiktionary. - filelakeshoe(SAVE WIKIPEDIA) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment I think you've got that right. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment I concur with transwiki AS LONG as there isn't much to be said about it atm. If the term evolves to a cultural concept, then the article should be updated with examples, frugality culture, pictures of examples and celebrities who claim to follow it, and information of that would make into an encyclopedia entry. As for the time being, since I am not an expert on the subject, I'll leave it to the closing admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loukinho (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 April 2011
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Chick Bowen 05:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football chant ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable song. GiantSnowman 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Go_West_(song)#In_culture, which already has a substantial amount of info about this. It isn't notable enough on its own, but seeing as already covered it's logical to leave a redirect. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct as per User:Dylanfromthenorth. The tune is the same Go West, but the impact is larger than the song. I have a book on my shelf called "Stand Up If You Hate Man United". The song has been referenced many times in media reports.... are these not RS? [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. This topic needs more discussion. Hurdygurley (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay of promotionalpatent nonsense about a dubious neologism alleged to be a "latest trend". Even if the subject were an actual subject that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a buzzword wannabe and sales slogan, this text still would still need to be replaced in its entirety, as nothing there now is salvageable:
sourcing complete solutions to run your business from the public cloud....
the latest trend to source complete solutions to run a business from the public cloud....
There are benefits from moving all of an enterprises IT infrastructure to the cloud....
Cloudsourcers can focus on more value-added services for their customers....
According to IDC Anlayst, Michael Fauscette, "It's really an extension of the business process outsourcing (BPO) business that exists today. There could be significant value generated to businesses by combining the two concepts, cloud computing and outsourcing a business process to a 3rd party. It takes cloud to the next step and offers the valuable combination for business of leveraging cloud computing + a cloud application (or cloud service) + business process execution in one bundle."
Keep Yes, it's a fashionable buzzword. Yes, most comment on any such buzzword will be an outbreak of suitpidity. ...and Yes, we do cover WP:NEOLOGISMs once they're established and sourced, such as by ZDNet.
The combination of the two is (or is at least treated as) a new topic, same as most business innovations, not just a fork. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ZDnet source is a blog; it may or may not be a reliable source. My first thought was to strip out the solution-speak, nonsense, and unreferenced claims and stub it, but that would leave little more than, "Cloudsourcing is a portmanteau word describing the use of cloud computing for outsourcing." That seemed unsatisfactory, and I looked at the links and Google News results without finding anything that even smelled like a fact. There are other reasons besides lack of notability to delete articles, and this would appear to meet several of them even if examples of the word being used are found in sources. "There's no there there."
Delete Very sparse use of the word, almost primarily in unreliable sources, often used "in quotes", which screams WP:NEO to me. At best, a lame wiktionary term. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there is some justification for a very short article on this topic, but none of the current content is suitable, it is all commercial jargon. Perchloric (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NEO even if it is an industry analyst who comes up with a neologism rather than a high-school kid. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable musician per the reasons already mentioned in the nominator's and voters' comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypofixx. This one-man band doesn't meet any of the criteria described in WP:BAND. In the previous AFD, the two people who voted to keep didn't actually give decent reasons for keeping, furthermore, one of them (user:sovex) was the article's creator, and the other one is a blocked sockpuppet. Thisistimothy (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, althogh sources tell us what he does, there isn't really any information on why its notable. The fact the detailed and important information is missing also means that an article of this size is little use to anyone. WP:BIO applies. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like vanity page created by a SPA. Ng.j (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please do not delete this article, links provided are verifiable sources from official tv channel's website and also newspaper magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.212.129 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual sources other than fanmags? No actual assertion of notability. Collect (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image gallery, and despite what those indicating keep in the last AFD stated, continues simply as an image gallery which is contrary to WP:NOT. Whpq (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic that the article intends to cover is definitely useful, but is very poorly presented. Indeed the article has not been improved since the last AFD, so I will personally volunteer to rewrite it (and rename it accordingly, say "History of display technology"). Casablanca2000in (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Casablanca2000in that the article has some formatting issues, but the very idea of an article that shows examples of different types of displays over the years is down right "encyclopedic". Properly written, it will take existing information from many different articles, add context, and present it in a way that is very useful. This is basically a "list of" type article, and while not a great example of how to format one, it is a great example of how useful lists can be. Seems perfectly fine with WP:LISTS via a modified time line. It has the potential to be an excellent article and a valuable resource. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs formatting changes. But not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is pretty much a textbook example of why we ignore all rules. Keeping this article (although probably with a better title, which is a matter for talk page discussion) would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia than deleting it, so we should do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cannot be defined "...simply as an image gallery...". This shows the evolution of the subject. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparent self-published author of questionable notability. "Published work" appears mainly to be list from his own website, little corroboration found. Largely unsourced, except for two local news mentions. No significant coverage in independent third party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has co-written (not written as the article claims) a few self-published books. The only news mentions are in one hyper-local paper. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out "co-written" because although there are additional names on each of the book covers, the second name is the illustrator. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin was first published in 1999 when he was accepted to the New England Young Writer's conference in Middlebury, Vermont, he was still in highschool. He was published in the anthology. In 2002 Dustin won the Horror writing contest sponsored by The Evening Sun Newspaper in Norwich N.Y. In 2006 his first book was published titled, "Taste," written By Dustin Warburton. In 2007 his 2nd book was published, "Strange Things," written by Warburton. In 2008 his 3rd book was published, titled, "My Brother Eats Spiders," written by Warburton. In 2009 his fourth book was published titled, 'Mortician's food, with a short story in the book by Alex Knight. In 2011 Dustin received a story credit for the feature film, Spiders 3D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.85.215 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — 75.67.85.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have provided several sources, and if need be, will provide the ISBN numbers to all books verifying the credits. All four books written by Warburton are now owned by PBP Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.85.215 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any significant third party coverage TangSing (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of mentions in your local paper does not make you notable. Ng.j (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination misrepresents the sources (local paper, not self) with a red herring about the source of the list of published works. No evidence is provided of Melanie N assertions (hyper-local, authorship), while the evidence I found (Books by the author on Google Books) indicates otherwise. Other deletors ditto. The correct rule is WP:AUTHOR. Anarchangel (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Authorship": The listings at Amazon all show a co-author - actually it's the illustrator while Warburton wrote the text, but they still show up on the cover of the book as a co-author or co-creator. RE: "Hyperlocal", the quotes are from The Evening Sun, "Chenango County's Hometown Daily". Chenango County has a population of about 50,000 - that's smaller than my NEIGHBORHOOD. The Evening Sun itself has a writing staff of six. I'd call that hyper-local, wouldn't you? RE: Self-publishing: My Brother Eats Spiders and Taste are published by BareBones Publishing, which is a self-publishing house actually owned by Warbuton and his illustrator-partner.[18] That's as self-published as you can get. Have you ever seen a self-published author get kept at AfD? --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin does not own BareBones Publishing with his artist partner, your source is mistaken. Also, Dustin authored four books, he is a co-author on one book, "Mortician's Food." He also wrote the story for Spiders 3D, a Hollywood film. Mortician's Food is a collection of short stories, 8 from Dustin, and 1 from Alex Knight. Get your facts straight before you start degrading our local author. Dustin wrote TASTE, Strange Things, and My Brother Eats Spiders, and he is the only listed author on those three books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.85.215 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BareBones was NOT a self publishing house, and is not owned by Warburton or Gorman. BareBones is no longer publishing books at this time. Also, Dustin only co-wrote one book out of the four books he published, and no one is claiming anything other than he did write the books himself, and hired artists to illustrate his stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.85.215 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if everything you assert is true - and I at least cited a source (possibly not a Reliable Source) about BareBones while you are simply asserting - he still does not meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR, of which the relevant one is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will submit the ISBN numbers and the copyright page from the books to verify he was the SOLE author on three of his four books. He hired the artists to illustrate his stories, therefore he was the creator, and we will get his original artist partner to verify as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.85.215 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother - it doesn't matter. I've already struck out my comment above about him being a co-author. The point is that his work has not been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and that is how his notability (or lack of) will be judged. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't coach in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. His team doesn't even have its own article! GiantSnowman 12:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adam Sadler coaches in a fully professional league and was deleted, so this guy definitely isn't notable. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete`-`distinctly non-notable; neither played for, nor coached, a fully pro team. TerriersFan (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football chant/song ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable song. GiantSnowman 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These sources should be taken into consideration. This is one of those topics that hundreds of thousands of people are familiar with (i.e. anyone who goes to Premier League or Football League Championship matches) but has little coverage in the sources that we consider reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was recently re-created by the paid Communications Coordinator for IOF, an WP:SPAadvertising-only account with no other edits other than related to International Osteoporosis Foundation. Was deleted multiple times under multiple incarnations such as International osteoporosis foundation and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), and recently un-salted at DRV, without bias of an AFD nom. This is one Part of a larger history of promotion on Wikipedia by the International Osteoporosis Foundation, see also -User_talk:Hu12#International_Osteoporosis_Foundation. While it has a few links, they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions.
The un.org link only lists the IOF name (along with hundreds of others). This is a generic list which is trivial.
The springer.com links are to self-published material and/or IOF Publications.
The ryortho.com link is RRY Publications, a marketing site masquarading as a source[19]. looks as if won a Silver ADDY® Award for "creative excellence in advertising." [20].
No significant third-party coverage could be found. Nothing more than continued Self-promotion and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOTHu12 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing them being quoted one hell of a lot in news. Over 4500 hits on Scholar, including some with the WHO. Someone thinks they are notable enough to be listened to and quoted, on a very regular basis. That alone tells me they pass wp:n if only in a general way. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created a number of times by someone several years ago. These were deleted for copyright violation by Hu12, then finally the page was blocked. I created a new page and asked Hu12 to review it, however he continues to insist it is spam, self promotion and not noteable. I disagree, and as a result I launched a deletion request review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30 which was successful. The admin agreed the page was noteable, not spam, and should be returned to the main space. The very same day it was returned to the main space, Hu12 once again marked it for deletion. You can view the Deletion Review log (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30) for discussion admin have already had on why this page should not be deleted. Inyon011 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that this article was recently restored to mainspace after a listing at DRV. I closed that discussion as restore to mainspace. While the consensus was not overwhelming, DGG does link to specific academic indications of notability and it seems unreasonable to immediately relist this without allowing the article time to grow. SpartazHumbug! 08:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The topic is solidly notable; this organization is frequently listed as a source for further information on Osteoporosis, &c. I added a couple of refs.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First off, this is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit organization engaging in the abuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. That is significant and should shift the height of the notability bar, in my opinion. I find that this organization's reports on Vitamin D deficiency are being cited by others as authoritative, such as THIS LINK to a piece by Science Daily, for example. The National Institute of Health links up to the IOF's material through it's website, see THIS EXAMPLE, indicating that its research is considered expert. I don't see any reasonable reading of this page as "spam" and feel that its deletion would remove information likely to be of use to Wikipedia visitors without any corresponding benefit to the project. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of this AFD. This organization is notable enough to be mentioned in the news, they considering it notable and reliable enough to quote statistics from. Reuters does fact checking from it. DreamFocus 10:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you about keeping this, I really do wish you would use policy based arguments rather then your own interpretation of what policy should be. You know full well that "mentions" do not count towards notability and that what is required are specific detailed sources. Vague waves towards googlehits/returns are also pretty worthless. Your AFD votes would be much more effective if you stuck to policy based arguments. SpartazHumbug! 04:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policies must be followed absolutely. Guidelines have at their top a tag that says you they can't be ignored, you using common sense. Common sense says if an organization is notable enough to have itself or its research quoted by major news sources, then its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I'll see about adding that to the guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG. DreamFocus 03:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add comments to my proposal at [21] DreamFocus 03:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; this is a neologism with limited use, apart from some throwaway mentions in tabloid newspapers - certainly not encyclopedic. GiantSnowman 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard this piece of slang used occasionally, but I don't believe it merits its own article. Wouldn't be averse to a merger to List of association football terminology, if such a thing exists...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Chris. Had enough notability to pass PROD, but I'd be surprised if anyone turned up more than fleeting mentions of it. --Dweller (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't even bother redirecting this. It's not really worth a mention at List of association football terminology, just because of its limited usage. It sounds more like something that a journalist would say than anything worth putting in an encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News coverage of this company is completely composed of passing mentions, so GNG is not met. Notability issues aside, the entire article is spam, save for the first two sentences. Goodvac (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/neutral I'm still pondering this, but I thought I'd add that I do see some additional coverage, am surprised by the number of mentions of Ride's IPO ([22], [23], [24], etc.) --joe deckertalk to me 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The necessary improvements have not been made in the past week. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repost of a promotional article about a thriller writer that has already been deleted after AfD. As far as I am aware there are no significant changes. The references are all to material that the author himself has written, such as his website and his books - nothing independent. Did Ken Kesey really tell him he was an important writer? Let's see the proof. Apart from lots of assertions of his brilliance and importance there's nothing to actually prove it. The article's author has been given ample time to correct these problems and hasn't done so. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. andy (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfD was in 2008, content has changed enough to be ineligible for G4. I am also working with the article's author via OTRS to improve the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was also speedied last December as a repost. When it was reposted yet again I too attempted to work with the author but simply got abused (see User talk:Datawatch/David Alexander (author)). I userfied it for him and I can't see that he's taken the bother to do very much to improve it. The previous AfD nomination said "Article does not assert subject's notability beyond listing all the books written by the author. No references or external links are provided to substantiate any awards, press coverage or significant impact author has had with his collective body of work", and that seems to be as true now as then. At that time DGG failed to find any evidence that the books were even popular, let alone notable, and this is still the case. andy (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author simply doesn't still understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, but I'm hoping that correspondence via OTRS can allow him to see issues with the page, and if he doesn't address them, deletion is fine with me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is simply too poorly sourced and overly-promotional for it to remain in article space, and notability has not been established since deletion at the last AfD. As Fetchcomms is in dialogue with the subject via OTRS, I will be happy to change my opinion should reliable sources be found and notability established prior to this discussion being closed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not substantially different from the one deleted in the earlier AfD. None of the references are real references (links to works by the author, ISBN numbers, and 'author's papers' don't count as references). Unless something changes because of the OTRS dialogue, the article should be deleted. --rgpk (comment) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:MUSIC. Demos are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. (Prod disputed as the article was previously deleted via prod.) SummerPhD (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous prod deletion has little to no meaning in this discussion. It is likely that I was the one who sent it through prod originally (I can't tell without a mop and bucket). The procedural (I assume...) dispute of the prod is proper. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The demo has not received any coverage as a stand-alone item, beyond downloading and social networking sites, to reach the notability required for a stand-alone article. The demo's existence has been noted at a couple of encyclopedic sites (like this) but listing it at the band's article is all that is needed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Demos are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Doomsdayer. A whole article on it is overkill. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of notability per WP:ORG. Sources given are either not independent or are incidental mentions in other stories. Prod contested by creator without explanation. Shire Reeve (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had tried to start a discussion about what (in detail) the concerns were about sources and notability on the article's talk page, but I had no response. I'm still learning about wikipedia etiquette, but I'd be grateful for more specific information about the concerns with this article so I can address them. As I pointed out on the talk page, there are plenty of similar - and arguably less notable - organisations, working in the same field that have wikipedia pages. many thanks Jpmaytum (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for your feedback. As I say on the article's talk page, it's still a work in progress and I thought I'd start with links as to why a non-housing audience would have heard of the organisation. I'm happy to add some links to government/ professional sources with my next update in the hope of including the article. many thanks Jpmaytum (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm trying, in general, to increase the information about social housing forms and structres in the UK and am pulling together and editing entries to help with this. As I pointed out around the similar delection discussion for Kensington and Chelsea TMO, It is really hard to source good information about social housing as it is not widely covered in mainstream media and it is not a great area of academic research, although arguably it is an important area of public policy. This is made more challenging when the local media is either behind a paywall, or has little internet content. However I'm trying to ensure that I can source information to better demonstrate notability in this case
Comment - Have discovered some new quality sources to determine notability. A study by the Cities Programme at the London School of Economics ('The Inhabitant') which uses Leathermarket JMB as a model of resident involvement and does some detailed ethnography of residents on JMB estates. Likewise I've discovered an (older) UK Governemnt report that cites the JMB as a model of involvement and a report of a comment by Matthew Taylor (previously Tony Blair's chief strategy advisor) citing the JMB for its resident involvement.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its obvious from this discussion that the article is being worked on and seems to be worth believing in as long as progress continues to be made. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I am the creator of this subject on june 2007.
For several reasons this author is probably much less known now than he was some years ago principally, I suppose, because the themes of his most known writings (like John Lennon and Khalil Gibran's lives) are no more at the first place for general public. However, by reading his writings one realizes that the reason of that "lost notoriety" is also that Jason Leen isn't similar to those so numerous "notable" mediums and psychics who seek fame and consent, but a deep spiritualist, a quiet resource-person, an inspirer and soul-healer.
At my knowledge Jason Leen is (or was) a well known writer and speacker in many countries, for example in Italy, and one of the worldwide known spiritual clairaudient and channeller. His books have been translated in many languages and edited by very notable publishers, as Armenia and Macro Edizioni in italian language and Goldmann Verlag and Aquamarin Verlag in deutsch. So his books are not self-published as asserted. Illumination Arts Publishing Company" seems also to be a known american publisher. (Awards). Gco (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural completion for broken nomination. Not sure of the reasoning. I am neutralRavendrop 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Publication lacks noteworthiness and its main author is "BeckerASC," implying this could be a vanity page or self-promoting page. TheNate (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references are self-referential. There is no external coverage that I could find; all Google hits are to the publication itself. While we're at it, someone should nominate Becker's Hospital Review and Becker's Orthopedic & Spine Review as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically, the article is an expanded business card. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Except for the non-impressive Alexa rank, there are no third-party sources, and no clear evidence of notability. RamiR 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It sounds like a lovely website and magazine, but it's short on independent reliable coverage as required for WP:WEB. I'm saying "weak" delete because it does get a mention in a few articles [25] [26], but they are behind paywalls; from the Google News listings they sound like passing mentions but I can't be sure. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's short on intependent coverage, but it is also not a website that is not going to be getting huge coverage outside of its own field; and I'm not sure if that is a reason or not to keep it. It is listed as the 13th largest internet forum on wikipedias page, List of internet forums. I would hate to see it go simply because there is not enough coverage of it, it is the largest and most well known forum inside a specific usergroup. Beaun (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's on that list doesn't make it the 13th largest. It's the 13th largest ON THAT LIST, which can easily be edited. I'm sure there are hundreds of forums that are larger. The guy who runs the site [ personal attack removed. RamiR 09:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC) ]. He updates the # of posts/threads stats on his site's page every week or two, and he probably put his site on that list. I can edit it off if I really wanted to, not by just removing it for no reason, but by finding other forums with more posts to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.118.140 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You almost seem to have some sort of personal vendetta gainst this website. What exactly is the reason NOT to have it as part of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.108.34 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The site does not meet any of the criteria listed on WP:WEB. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Former podcast turned broadcast radio show. Some limited syndication but not seeing significant coverage in 3rd party sources (though the similarity in the title with an album by the same makes searching difficult). Only references provided by the creator are to primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This may be a notable topic, but I'm not finding the third-party party sources, so unless someone does, it should be deleted. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MrFizyx put it well. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If Hathery or another user wants to work to improve it, I will userfy. Without any indication that someone will actually work on the article in the userspace, it's delete for now. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR. No awards, don't appear to have any significant contributions. The statement "widely recognized as the funniest blog in the state of Wisconsin" is particularly problematic. None of the sources are reliable. Royalbroil 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this vanity article fails all tests of notability, verifiability, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about speedy but the article has been around a long time with lots of hands touching it. It's not too hard to have a discussion. Royalbroil 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify It has been around a long time. Was created by editor User:Hathery including uploading pic of subject identified as a photo provided by the subject; Hathery does not appear to be a regular editor now so probably will not see this discussion before it is over, no matter what. I tend to agree notability is not apparent, but let's be nice about this. How about userfying it to User:Hathery's space rather than deleting it, and leaving notice for this editor about how standards for articles have changed and/or about what they are, changed or not. Perhaps there have been subsequent substantial coverage of this person in wp:RS reliable sources, or perhaps there will be future such coverage. --doncram 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. As to doncram's suggestion, WP:USER states "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." I'm a firm believer in not letting people get in the habit of using user-space as an alternative to deletion. The article is either worthy of improving, in which case surely someone besides Hathery could do it, or it is not. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to be none too notable. Article not adequately supported by sources. Few Ghits, most of which are directory type links. Should have been deleted back in January 2010 when creator and principal author blanked the page, but was instead reverted. Ohconfucius¡digame! 07:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and from reading the article it's hard to tell what they are claiming he is notable for. Google News finds only items from the Colorful Times (which he himself writes and edits), plus articles about other people by the same name (which must be a fairly common name in Ghana judging by the number of different people who turn up on a search). --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I would ad that the nominator ignored the advice in the guide to deletion to avoid using wiki-acronyms and initialisms in the nomination. The least you could do is link them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous short forms here which are not linked or explained? How can one defend inclusion if terms are not linked or explained? PROD ? WP ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aretheysafe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no coverage at Google News; in fact, a more recent Pew report by the same name seems more notable than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hard one to research because the title itself "When Technology Fails" is such a commonly used phrase. The actual book, however, appears to be not so notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only Google News result mentioning this is behind a paywall. [27] Can anyone see what it says? DreamFocus 17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the book has a lot of good sources in it! what is WP:NBOOK ? Where can I read about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aretheysafe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a scholarly work often cited by others. See, for example, this Google scholar search. Seems like the article creator could've spent a wee bit of time though in fleshing out the article with readily-available scites. I remember seeing the work cited as well by a local newspaper (Puget Sound area) re the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse, but it was some time ago and may not be in someone's news archive index any longer. However, several experienced engineers I know expressed familiarity with the book off the top of their heads when I asked them. So, given that is it a recognizable title to some engineers and is well-documented as a scholarly source re the above search query, perhaps a deletion is hasty. Sctechlaw (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct typo) Sctechlaw (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage to show notability.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just gone and done some minor expansion and referencing. The only concern left is the notability question. I will refrain from !voting since I've contributed to the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû(blah?) 05:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The updated article now says "It was one of the top referenced books in the New York Public Library in 1995.[2]" Used by scholars, so the book is notable. DreamFocus 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what it looked like before but passes notability now. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Does not pass WP:ACTOR. He works professionally as an actor and has had a few small parts in TV shows, plus a significant role in ONE episode of M*A*S*H. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LoganTalkContributions 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the IMDB has a list of his minor roles, but not enough sources to create a full biography. Anyone find differently? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate that has absolutely no point or purpose to it. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTABILITY -- "Chandrabala magazine" gets no gnews hits, 62 ghits which look to be blogs and self-generated content, nothing denoting notability Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability and most of the so called references are links to self promotional material by the artist working on this comic publication.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This entry doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. The claim to notability is that he published a monograph and several books, for which no reviews are cited. Oprişan appears to be widely unknown in his Romanian context: true, his monograph is once mentioned by name on page 1006 of George Călinescu's History of Romanian Literature (1986 reprint), among virtually all the works published on Alexandru Vlahuţă before 1958 - I counted 17 others just for Vlahuţă's entry, all in fine print on the same page. In this massive opus, Oprişan's literary work is not once discussed in the body of text. Judging from internet content and archives, including those of interwar magazines, Oprişan is virtually non-existent, either as "Ion Gr. Oprişan", "Ion Grigore Oprişan" (presuming that's what "Gr." stands for) or "Ion G. Oprişan". Same results for the variation "Ioan" instead of "Ion". He does get hits from wikipedia forks or discussion pages, and a couple of passing mentions in some unreliable internet publications by an Orthodox splinter group - see here or here (the very same text, from a 1943 original). The latter results reflect not his writing career or his lawyer's credentials, but something not mentioned in the article: he apparently was a grassroots member of the highly controversial new religious movement Oastea Domnului. Also note that the one source cited in the article is a relative's speech at a genealogical symposium. Dahn (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mainly per Dahn's thorough analysis, but also due to a search of my own, which does indeed show that the few mentions of him are either definitely in passing, on self-published sites, or on mirrors of this page. No independent reliable sources appear forthcoming. - BiruitorulTalk 13:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Amalthea 15:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resueman Wikipedia, much like Scientology and like some cults have done has crafted a specific set unique terms not used elsewhere (because they are intentionally vague and skirt the issue or motivation or do not give a detailed acccount at face value of the issue at hand) to serve themselves. It is like how after World War II in Germany mixed race children were called by the code name of Rheinlandbastards. "This appears to be a Rheinlandbastards." As though just by giving it a name they are justified to do what they do. It is a mathematics article with correct new information. It was ill-tolerated because the community tolerated individuals who serve themselves and their social groups instead of serving the greatest good of the freedom to share new ideas and knowledge. A clear sign that what is identified as sin or ill-behavior is likely not is when the individuals who label it so do not speak plainly of it or have specialized terms used only by them. If they spoke plainly of what concerned them they risk their actions been seen by all and this those who seek to censure and limit do not look kindly upon. Sincerely, M. M. Musatov 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)~
Delete - in plain words, Wikipedia is not the right place to explain or document original ideas if they have not yet been published in an academic journal or similar. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline - I can't find substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vermont South, Victoria - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could almost be speedied as an advert, frankly. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overtly promotional in tone and the subject is not notable. The usual practice of redirecting is flawed and leads to the inconsistent treatment of schools where some schools get a redirect and others don't based solely on if someone has created an article or not, regardless of its merit. -- Mattinbgn (talk)
Redirect per above. Dismas|(talk) 05:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like blatant copy and paste cruft. Primary schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:ORG which this does not. LibStar (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary and middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Battle of Khe Sanh. The unsourced bulleted list has been converted to sourced prose that now fits well as a paragraph in the target article. Sandstein 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IPC, these lists of indiscriminate trivia are supposed to be well sourced. This one isn't. Being spun off like this means it will never properly integrate into proper prose either, and will likely remain a list of indiscriminate trivia. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Battle of Khe Sanh, at least the parts that can be sourced, which is almost none of the current article. Not sure of the relevance of the list as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP rules do not tell us how to create "lists of indiscriminate trivia", they tell us how to avoid them; by making a discriminate inclusion criterion.
The nomination ignores the distinctions in WP:IPCA: "Per WP:IPC, these lists of indiscriminate trivia are supposed to be well sourced". This is only a valid point by accident. Turns out spinoffs are supposed to be well sourced, also, but because they are summary articles, not because of IPCA. This is not a section in "Battle of Khe Sanh" we are discussing, it is a WP:CFORK#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles article (Note: IPCA should include at least a mention of sourcing, but it does not).
Profoundly invalid logic follows: "Being spun off like this means it will never properly integrate into proper prose either, and will likely remain a list of indiscriminate trivia." Again, spinoff is valid. Prose is not dependent on the source, but on editors who can create it. Discrimination is a choice for editors to the article.
I am going to play devil's advocate and bring up the subject of POV Magnetism, as well, because I have seen too many closers Delete based on a wild card rationale that no one mentioned in the AFD. That, again, is a matter for editors on the page to deal with, and Deletion is not a valid substitution for elbow grease.
WP:DEL requires "thorough attempts to find reliable sources". RS:
Greasy Lake & other stories; T. Coraghessan Boyle, page 2
The short-timers; Gustav Hasford, Harper & Row, 1979
etc, etc. Sources are unusually easy to find in this case, although there are many to find. I will add the sources above. Thoroughness is not required in this case, only spare time. Easy to find sources, easier to tag entries {{citation needed}}. Not a problem for this deletion review. I am much more concerned about completely unnecessary levels of POV material entering the article through quotes, such as some author's opinion of General Westmoreland, etc (which I will paraphrase, instead, and removing the truly trivial "makes the Battle of Khe Sanh look like a picnic" cameo appearance in popular culture, as an example of how I believe the article can be improved).
Why maintain it as a spin off if it's so short? It just becomes a dumping ground for every pop culture reference that people might randomly come across. We aren't TV Tropes. Gigs (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - this is the exact kind of stuff that we work on trimming from articles and that wikipedia is mocked for. Are any of these sources actually about the concept of this battle in popular culture? This looks like it's just a bunch of individual references. A merge could be done, but only if it's done carefully to avoid just a "In popular culture" section with a list of trivia. Yaksar(let's chat) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per. Dennis Brown. V7-sport (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Brown. Moray An Par (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchange. When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. References are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. Thus, this is not a dumping ground, and it is less likely to become one if it is kept as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the major issues here is that there's really no discussion or coverage in sources of the concept of the "Battle of Khe Sanh in popular culture". Without that, this really is nothing but a dumping ground for individual times it was mentioned in a TV show or song or whatever. Look at what's actually in the article: a mention in a video game? In a line of a song? In the Big Lebowski? A reference in a book simply comparing it another battle? These are mentions of trivia that could very well be trimmed out of an "in popular culture" section of a good article, let alone deserve their own. It hasn't been proven that this can be anything but a dumping ground; for that we'd need actual sources covering the concept of the battle in popular culture, not just a bunch of individual mentions and trivia.--Yaksar(let's chat) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is infinitely better (and smaller) than it was when I !voted to Merge, above, although still not sure if it would require a separate article. I will leave that to the closing admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable Heidijane (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few Google refs under his other moniker - try a Bill Watson Pocono Mountains Media Group search - but still nothing substantial as far as I can see. He is something in the American Press Institute and appears was/is managing editor of the Ponoco Record. It's scanty stuff. He doesn't seem to have acheived anything much beyond his day job; a job and web site that doesn't appear to be of national or significant local notability. Others of course might find something that is more significant. Acabashi (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means get me off this Web site. I am no longer affiliated with the Pocono Record or anything else. WJW
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD; original rationale was "non-notable sports song." I stand by it, and would like to add that I'm shocked that this article has remained unchallenged since August 2006! GiantSnowman 11:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not a notable song, realistically what sort of "significant coverage" could be given to a song of unknown authorship with only two different lines of "lyrics".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a song article consists entirely of lyrics, it's a decent bet that it's non-notable. This wouldn't appear to be an exception. No sign of sources to establish notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not of notability. Author fails to state reliable sources. Article is only inclusive of lyrics, and is definitely not a popular song. Who's gonna win the league? Which club's song is that? EspañolDaLanguage!AmorEspaña! (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal are! Wummer71 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiSource. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? GiantSnowman 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've heard worse reasons... GiantSnowman 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-)--Dweller (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Not encyclopedic and not notable--Shrike (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: There are tons of sources in Google News Archive[28] and Google Books[29]. Most are RS and many do mention the song. However, most of them are only brief mentions and do not address the song as a whole. I would not be shocked if someone found an overview in RS somewhere. If that were to happen I would go with keep. Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BigDom (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently produced movie which is currently being picked up for distribution, it is made for our BA Honours in Film and Media and is scheduled to be at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, this is not a hoax but merely a place for the films credibility to be noticed, as well as the entire cast and production team involved. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDRulez (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To User RDRulez: Even an amateur film "might" be able to show Wikipedia-suitable notability if it has enough coverage and critical commentary in reliable sources so as to meet WP:Notability (films). A major problem with the article is that as written, it precludes our being able to even verify its existance, much less search for such coverage. Amir who? Josh who? Will who? Winder who? Ryan who? Which school is meant by the acronym HNC? When will/did it screen? Was it reviewed? While appreciating your contribution, you did not give us enough information with which to source the article. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources discussing this film, so the article fails WP:N and WP:V. Wikipedia isn't a place to get something noticed or widely known, it merely documents things that are. Hut 8.5 11:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and even then only those things already documented by someone else somewhere else. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. The author asserts above that the film exists and will screen at Cannes in 2012, but unfortunately not enough information is offered in the article to even source its existance. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5 and Michael Q. I was the original poster of the PROD, which was removed in my absence. ♥puff! 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Album has detailed review on AllMusic. Expansion is what is needed, not deletion.--3family6 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source, two third party sources should meet notability.--3family6 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expired PROD, but has been deleted via PROD before. PROD concern was:
One unbroadcast pilot episode, and vague plans for a series, does not warrant a full page. Best to merge with the article for Outnumbered for the forseable future.
I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Keep relevant content from here and redirect to Outnumbered. Having seen the failure of the pilot for The Thick of It (U.S. TV series), I'm inclined to suggest merging with the original British series for the time being. We may as well keep the article title as a redirect, as this will preserve the infobox and categories in the history incase this becomes a full series. Bobtalk 12:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent show per the above. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable division of the parent organisation. A redirect is not needed since the article acronym is not in common usage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little extra information that require a separate article. One could extend a bit the parent article, but sure not for everything. -- SchreyP (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The (quite valid) question of renaming the article can continue at the article Talk page. joe deckertalk to me 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable chemical substance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found 50 hits in scholar. Not sure what the criteria is for chemicals, but pretty sure it isn't the same as for BLP. Would seem that if it exists and someone has documented the chemical, that is notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Refraining from !voting simply from a lack of experience in notability cases for chemicals, but wanted to make the point of the references found. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - chemicals that are of scholarly interest, and are well-attested to the degree this has been, should be considered notable. We have deleted non-notable chemicals before, though this is not one of those. Currently, the stub is basically original research and may need incubation or rescue. FWIW, I got an A in biochemistry 25 years ago. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject of multiple peer reviewed articles (now added to article) and a crystal structure of this compound in complex with an enzyme that degrades it has been determined (PDB: 2ZI8). This particular chemical is interesting since it is a product of cholesterol metabolism by the bacteria that causes tuberculosis. Inhibiting the production degradation of this metabolite may provide a treatment for tuberculosis. Boghog (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there must be hundreds of thousands (millions?) of chemicals turning up in the WP:PRIMARY chemistry literature. Lacking secondary or tertiary sources demonstrating interest beyond very narrow technical specialists, this topic lacks the notability required for an article. The lack of such sources also render the article largely incomprehensible jargon, of little interest to a wider readership. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – PMID 19300498 in turn cites PMID 17264217 that both mention DHSA, that makes the former a secondary source. Boghog (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Both are primary research articles -- not review articles, chemistry textbooks or similar, that would count as WP:SECONDARY. Primary research articles frequently cite other primary research articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine: A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary. There is no difference between the introduction of peer reviewed primary source and a review article. Both summarize previous work in the field and both are peer reviewed. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what does the "survey" in this "primary peer-reviewed source"(PMID 19300498) of this "previous work"(PMID 17264217) have to say about DHSA? Little, if anything, I would suspect. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually quite a bit. You should read it. Boghog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But more relevantly, how much of what any of these "primary peer-reviewed source[s]" have to say about DHSA (in their survey or elsewhere), would be in the least bit comprehensible to the average reader? This is one important reason to steer well clear of primary research literature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. There is no requirement that every Wikipedia article be understandable to the average reader. Just a request that the lead is understandable. Boghog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub, so the article is the lead. And it is hard to see what purpose an incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists article would serve. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RUBBISH: the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. This article could easily be made understandable to wide audience by including the relevance to tuberculosis infections. The fact the article currently does not contain this information is not a valid justification for deletion. Boghog (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reject that WP:RUBBISH is relevant. The problem is not that this is a "Poorly written article" that may be 'cleaned up' -- the problem is that ALL the information we have on the topic is "incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists", which CANNOT HELP but result in "an incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists article", without some fairly heavy WP:SYNTH, or outright WP:OR, to explain it to a non-technical audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to the conclusion that all the information is incomprehensible? Boghog (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article contains NOTHING except DENSE SCIENTIFIC JARGON -- and generally specialist jargon at that. This renders it "incomprehensible-except-to-a-few-specialists". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing what is currently contained in the article vs. what it could contain. The information that we have on this topic is from a number of publications in the scientific literature. What is currently contained in the article is a small fraction of the available information on the topic. The article has been rewritten so that it is now understand to a wide audience. Certainly the clarity could be improved further but I think the article now clearly shows that this technical topic can be presented in an understandable way. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and expanded the article a bit to include more information on the possible therapeutic relevance (inhibiting its oxidation may be useful for treating tuberculosis infections). Boghog (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your additions have done nothing whatsoever to make it in the slightest bit comprehensible to a non-specialist audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, an article that is not understandable by a wide audience is not a valid justification for its deletion. But regardless, I have made further modifications to the point where I think most people would now agree that it is at least somewhat understandable to a non-specialist audience. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would point out that Secondary_source is an article, not a policy, guideline or similar -- in fact it explicitly states "For the use of this term in Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia:No original research." Therefore it is the latter, not the former, that controls what is considered a primary or secondary source in terms of Wikipedia policy (including how this relates to notability). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Shouldn't this article be called "3,4-DHSA"?[30][31]—RJH (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the article probably should be renamed. Boghog (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two templates to the talk page. Please add this AfD to those areas, Medicine and Molecular and Chemical Biology. Only experts are likely to know how notable and/or important this chemical is, so we should give them some opportunity to know about the AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Boghog.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep chemical of scholarly interest. Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a chemical of biochemical and medical interest.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable pharmaceutical and this level of detail is not needed in WP. WP is not a pharmacological catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference provided at the article does not support the use of this compound as a pharmaceutical. It is not listed at PDR, the definitive reference for pharmaceuticals in the United States. Google hits are mostly not Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference in the article says, "A commercial pharmaceutical formulation of this drug (Anthocyanoside A tablet, produced by Mehr-Darou Pharmaceutical Company, Iran..." A Google search on ["Anthocyanoside A" Mehr OR MehrDarou] shows hits. There are also hits on ["ANTHOSYANOSIDE A"] and ["Anthocyanoside A" site:ir]. This site says, "Anthocyanoside A TABLET ORAL Myrtillus Anthocyanosidic Extract of Vaccinium Myrtillus 100mg + Betacarotene 5mg". Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This site" is a dead link, please post it again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, the link is still working for me, so maybe the problem is that my browser info is in the link. Here is an edited version of the same link. I'm seeing some unusual behavior with right-to-left text and the text sliding off to the left, so if the page body is blank maybe you can search for "cyan" or click on Google's "text only" version. The direct website is this, and other websites with the same info are found with a Google search on ["Iran drug list" Anthocyanoside myrtillus]. Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No published trials or reviews found in pubmed. Rknight (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Article contained swatches of Arabic, Thai, and what looks like Sinhalese scripts, as well as fragmentary English musings about "life is like a book". Discussion at WP:PNT suggested that some of the non-English Roman text was Bengali song lyrics, a possible copyvio as well: Life is like a book, each day has a new page, with adventures to tell, lessons to learn and tales on good deed to remember.By jabed আমার শপণ জোরে আছো তোমি.......♥♥♥♥♥♥فاوأأنپدرزش ...Tumi chara pritibita bishon ekla eka. ఆఇడుీఞసฆจฦฦห๎ฒฒฦยฟู๚๛ - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody's personal thoughts and homilies. Non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks more like patent nonsense to me. I'd consider a speedy delete for this one. --Tathar (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around since 2008 and has not come very far. That in itself is not grounds for deletion but since the article is of a highly technical nature and cannot be redirected to anything suitable it is better to delete it in the interim. Also, the four letter acronym "GEEC" may have other meanings in which case no page is better than this stub. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged with the Technical tag for two years, and there is no obvious way of fixing it - all the references I could find were also highly technical. Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. There are almost no reliable third party sources, and in any case the article does not say what the sources do. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
Article is a blatant copyvio and advertising spam, the author created a duplicated version of this article in the (disambiguation) page, but he has blanked it out. Anyway this company or organization lacks substantially notability to have an article on wikipedia Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of article appears to pass WP:GNG, see significant coverage in reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article would appear to have nothing to do with what the sources say. This article speaks of this business driving Aeta people from their ancestral homes. The other article now 404s, but calls APECO a "threat to biodiversity", and the Google snippet says that it's "an amendment on the Aurora Special Economic Zone". The current text is pure shilling and has nothing to do with what the sources found say; even if this business were notable, it needs a do-over. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done but I moved the tag over and relisted the debate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject doesn't appear to be of sufficient notably. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 03:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've found over 35,200 hits so far of related articles, does not entirely assure this is notable enough however. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of articles with coverage about Kevin Jacobsen, one example being Holmes, Peter (1 July 2007), "The bitter public rift in Col Joye's family", Sunday Telegraph that begins "LEGENDARY impresario Kevin Jacobsen". duffbeerforme (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has an OAM, many media appearances... what more do you want? Lankiveil(speak to me) 06:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (A10) as unnecessary duplication of Resurrection of Jesus. Please note that this does not fall under WP:CSD#G1 (at least in my view), but this was going to be speedy deleted in one way or another. –MuZemike 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article is sourced from one apparently obscure book, and is either a paraphrasing from this nonnotable book, or an original essay. some version of the TITLE of this article is certain to be well documented elsewhere on WP (i dont think the christian article creators would miss the concept of jesus' body being somehow transcendent or made holy at some point), and the content here would not be an appropriate addition to any of the articles that the general subject may be addressed at. and, of course, no indication given that this is a notable interpretation of this concept outside the one ref given. 142ghits for the exact phrase, with one potential source to show notability, [32] (many of the ghits are tertiary references to this author) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unwikified gibberish. "The body of glory like a concept raised by John in order to oppose the understanding of doketisme. With the concept of a glorious body, showing the glory of God that is present in the person of Jesus as full human very doubtful by docetism."Carrite (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete in addition to what carrite said I would say not only unwikified but nonsensical. Perhaps this was a google Languages translation from a difficult-to-translate language. I hope so, the only alternative conclusion is that the writer is barely literate. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously translated poorly. The topic is covered in Resurrection of Jesus and any additional, well cited, information can be added there. Borock (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. This is apparently a bad machine translation of parts of the linked Indonesian language article, and as such also a redundant fork of Resurrection of Jesus: Revival is the perfect presence of Jesus. The body of glory was to be intact at the time of Jesus shows the results of obedience in carrying out the will of God. Obedience Jesus the greatest of obedience to Him and let Him be crucified. The body receive the glory that will be intact at the time of Jesus reveal God's great glory to Himself through the greatest miracles He the view. All it needs now is a sprinkling of TLAs and a forward looking statement about how the glorified body of Jesus will take your business to the next level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unsourced article about a martial art that makes no claims of notability. My search found nothing that shows notability and no independent reliable sources that even discuss this art. The best I could find was Wikipedia mirrors. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are unreliable and too little to count. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no claim of notability in the article and it meets none of WP:MANOTE, plus it has no reliable sources (nor could I find any). Astudent0 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Janggeom (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008(talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't decide what is more problematic about this article. It could be the fact that it uses a native Romanian spelling for a Turkish word, so obscure a word that I can't even determine its actual spelling (zahercu?). It could be that it merely refers to food merchants, no particular reason why these food merchants are more relevant than others on the "international stage". It could also be that the term itself is antiquated (and was colloquial) even in Romanian. The encyclopedic dictionary that I use for quick reference has entries on other words from the Ottoman era from seimeni and agă, to the utterly blurry seraschier, and includes an entry on the generic term, zaherea ("a generic term for provisions [...] that the Romanian lands were obliged to furnish to the Ottoman armies"). But zaheregiu is absent. Google searches for zaheregiu and the plural zaheregii give just about no results. Some other significant problems: the article was created exclusively to fill a red link in a couple of articles from the Filotti family cruft, all of which are now deleted; incidentally, like those articles, it uses a very questionable reference that is quite possible self-published, and is certainly not a reliable source (the author is a raving amateur). Dahn (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki at the least. It would seem to me that this is a dictdef at the very least, and possibly a hoax? I can't tell either. I did some source investigation as well and I can't make heads or tails of it. I can't determine if this term EXISTS from english-language sources. Can we ask someone that is a native speaker to give us some guidance? I'll ask around. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically it's just a dictionary definition for a Romanian word that may or may not exist. It's useless even for Wiktionary. Hans Adler 09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an Ottoman Turkish word for grain dealer [33] [34] written according to Romanian phonetic rules. If ever used in an article, a parenthetical explanation would suffice.Anonimu (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's zahireci in the Turkish? At long last, the literate spelling. Thank you, Anonimu. Dahn (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the input of champmasters (talk·contribs), who is an expert in the Turkish language. Even though it seems fairly definitive, a cherry on top would be great. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got this response via email:
“
In looking at that word (Zaheregiu) as it's spelled in the article, something caught my eye. It hasn't any Turkish-language meaning, at all - even if you break it into syllables (eg. Zaher-egiu) to form a combined word. (Their are Turkish words that are similar in looks, but not similar enough to be useful.) And... it simply isn't logical that a group of Ottoman Age 'Balkan grain traders' would have a meaningless Turkish name. So, I'll bet you a fiver that (Zaheregiu) is slightly misspelled.
I'll investigate further... but for now just consider one of a few credible possibilities. Turks finally began [giving themselves "proper" western-like surnames], often attaching 'oglu' (meaning 'the son of') at the end an heroic name to create a surname for themselves. Now, observe the last 4 letters of the name in question (-egiu). They could have easily been mis-copied when they were taken from the original document (perhaps when they were manually extracted, or when they were spelled-checked, or when the were OCR-ed). Mebbe those letters ought to be 'oglu' instead of 'egiu'...The correct o-letter could have become a similarly-shaped incorrect e-letter during copy/extraction...And so on... Of those 4 letters, I suspect that...only the g and the u-letters made it through cleanly, from the source document. And perhaps, the h-letter in 'Zaher' (a word which has *no* meaning in Turkish) should be an f-letter -- resulting in 'Zafer' which means an heroic 'Victory'. And, combining, you get Zaferoglu... Son(s) of Victory...which is still a very common surname in Turkey.
There are a couple of other misspelling possibilities that I also need to consider -- such as Zaferrengi, Zafiroglu, etc.
”
So it seems like there is nothing about the article that lends itself to being credible. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed by Anonimu above, the term does have a marginal existence in Romanian, and originates with a marginal Turkish term. The problem here is that, although the Romanian term is a borrowing of a Turkish, the spelling differs by so much that it's easy to see why champmasters was unable to track down any reference to it: both languages have phonetic modern spellings, but those spellings are now utterly unfamiliar to each other. To begin with, I myself could tell that zaheregiu was quite possibly a combination of zaherea ("[army] supplies") - which is somewhat attested as a Romanian word - and the suffix -giu. The suffix itself is the Turkish -cu or -ci (gi in Romanian is pronounced dj or dji), and survives in common Romanian words, so much so that it has even been adapted into jocular terms (scandalagiu - a scandal-maker). I sourced some of this info here. So I knew that zaheregiu was a hamfisted attempt to render a Turkish word through the Romanian, and that the root word sounded something like zaherecu - Anonimu clarified that the root word is zahereci or zahireci.
The above is just to help sort out the additional confusion, for which I am partly responsible. That said, I still don't see any reason why this obsolete and marginal term should have its own article, let alone why it should be an entry under its Romanian spelling. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY DELETED as blatant hoax by User:MrKIA11. postdlf (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax; I cannot find any information on Google about any such crime family. Article creator also added this article to List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates with two book sources, but I searched through the books via Google Books and even the last name isn't mentioned in either one of them. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find absolutely nothing on this and based on the users edit to another article, no doubt this is a blatant hoax and I have placed a Speedy Delete tag accordingly. Safiel (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:GNG. a non notable event that only gets 7 gnews hits in over 7 years of existence [35]. none of the coverage is international indicating this is hardly a widely recognised international event. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How, if it has seven gnews hits, can you say that it fails WP:GNG? Having seven gnews hits is usually prima facie evidence of passing the GNG. Admittedly, the ABC one is just a radio playlist (insignificant), and the SMH one is a trivial mention, but two of the Age articles definitely pass the "significant coverage" threshold. The article needs improvement, not deletion. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
simple, it purports to be a major festival attracting international acts but averages one news story a year, most of which merely confirms its existence. that is hardly significant, if it started in 2010 and had 7 gnews hits, then perhaps. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG doesn't specify any minimum temporal density of reliable secondary sources - it sets the bar at one. You'll have to argue something other than GNG if you don't think this article should be kept.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Yeti hunter article needs improvement not deletion. Seven Gnews hits doesnt equal to it failing WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability has been presented.--Grahame (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also concur with Yeti hunter article needs improvement and not deletion. It is poorly written, lacks external links to other music festivals in the City of Melbourne.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't evidence linking it significantly with other festivals, it lacks coverage and we don't create articles which average one article every year of existence. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete on May 21, but keep until then :-) Seriously, the guy's gotten enough coverage that he's quite obviously notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod (on notability grounds) contested; No serious assertion of notability; Totally Unreferenced; Clearly fails WP:NF. Monty845 18:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional notes: The creator removed all the maintenance tags on the nominated page, and similar article, Avalanche:_Nature_Unleashed still has a prod active. Monty845 18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability; no attempt at encyclopedic content (beyond such bare facts as IMDB is a better vehicle for). It's been a week since the article was created; if the creator had anything encyclopedic to say he'd have said it by now. If at some point something notable does show up, the article can easily be recreated. What is currently in there can be pulled from IMDB. –Henning Makholm (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to be notable Eeekster (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball Watcher 01:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references are existent. Article makes a credible assertion of significance. --43?9enter☭msg☭contribs 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whlie article contents are rather short, I believe a closer look at the sources, which are plenty, would give a slight boost in article expansion here. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found third party reviews, like this. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2007, article says he is a college student who is a Senior News Editor somewhere in the Washington D.C area. He maybe working at IslamOnline.net as there are some Google hits, but I keep getting errors when trying to view them. Most of the article tells what he had done as a student. Majority of references are to the Univ of Utah student newspaper. From his student exploits, I have a feeling he will be notable in the future, but not now. Bgwhite (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yes, his name was mentioned in a few Utah newspaper articles, but mainly in passing. Really hasn't had coverage about him specifically. Being an intern for Ted Koppel and doing a short stint on an obscure TV station isn't enough to be "notable". Maybe some day he will be notable, but not today. Not strong enough mention in reliable sources to pass the bar yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete seems to have been created by the subject, very weak notability Ng.j (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NFILM, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Article is no more than a negligibly sourced castlist; no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Prior VFD/AFDs reached no consensus, with "keep" arguments resting on the now-deprecated standard that a porn film is notable if it includes multiple notable porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. First nomination, at VFD, is reproduced on article's talk page. Prior AFD was apparently not correctly numbered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I go to WP:PORN and see a list of reliable sources that review material of thiss sort. Obviously mainstream newspapers won't cover it. The first site on the list has a review of it. [36] Another reliable source [[37]] mentions its was reviewed in by Adam Film World and Hustler Erotic Video, both giving it a 3. Not sure if either of those are notable though. I find it unlikely you can have more than one notable porn star in something, without it getting reviews everywhere. Just can't find all the old pornographic review magazines and whatnot archived on the internet from 26 years ago. DreamFocus 04:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet WP:PORNBIO.--יום יפה (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous advertisement (brings together direct response advertisers and affiliate publishers with the purpose of generating campaigns that deliver leads and sales... The company was one of first performance marketing companies to leverage a social marketing strategy.) for a non-notableonline business. Another page designed to look plausible by a PR pro, but the "references" are to Facebook and Twitter accounts, PR sources, Top 500 lists, and the like. Only claims to significance are inclusions on lists of similar businesses. GNews finds a busy PR department, but nothing better. -50 notability points for leverage as a verb. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few sources given were quoting press releases from the company. Pretty obvious spam. Article would require a complete rewrite to remove spam, but that wouldn't establish notability. Spam. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete References are press releases and the company twitter account. Ng.j (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Few reliable sources found to indicate encyclopedic fit through WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and/or WP:AUTHOR. The best bets are an interview at Blogcritics. Other elements, like winning an "EPPIE", is an award from EPIC, not seen as anything substantial at Wikipedia (judging by lack of an article) or by EPIC themselves (considering the award page is at least a year out of date). Books are published through very minor presses (Tribute Books, Twilight Times Books, Damnation Books, LLC), which doesn't seem to lend weight to encyclopedic fit. tedder (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to note that EPIC is a international (US and UK) writers association composed of publishers, editors, authors and illustrators. It was established in 1998, and is the leading organizations dedicated to electronic publishing, analogous to RWA. The awards page is current; they have not completed their competition for books published in 2010. Regardless of what gets decided concerning my page, I wanted folks to know that EPIC is an important organization in the electronic publishing world. Karina Fabian (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)KarinaFabian[reply]
(moved from AFD talk page in WP:AGF) tedder (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD. The first result is from a major newspaper interviewing her! [38] Look BEFORE you nominate. There is no way you couldn't have spotted that. DreamFocus 11:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. The original source of that is Blogcritics, and I mentioned it. One article doesn't demonstrate a depth of coverage. tedder (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[39] quotes her. Says she is the President of the Catholic Writers' Guild. Sounds like a notable position. DreamFocus 12:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: a "Catholic PRWire" "MEDIA ADVISORY" -- NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. TO. INDEPENDENT. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. TO. RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given that her article claims that she created this guild, no, we have no reason to assume that it is "a notable position" (no mention of it elsewhere on Wikipedia, and little in the way of profile outside). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a blog-interview (thus neither particularly prominent or particularly reliable, and arguably interview transcripts are a WP:PRIMARY source), repeated on an online newspaper (NOT "a major newspaper" -- Seattle's major newspaper being the Seattle Times), does not notability make. Google News hits present little evidence of anything that could remotely be considered significant coverage, let alone independent significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a major newspaper. Major as in significant, although perhaps not the largest, I don't know. It was a printed newspaper for 146 years, until two years ago when it changed to an online newspaper format. Still the same newspaper, still a reliable source. The fact that someone published the interview in a different spot first, doesn't matter. They declared it notable enough to publish in their online newspaper. And Blogcritics does have a paid staff of editors that has to read and approve anything submitted to them, they not just letting anyone post whatever they want on their site. So they are a reliable source themselves. DreamFocus 13:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Media in Seattle lists The Seattle Times as "Seattle's major daily newspaper". (ii) It is possible that the SP-I was a major newspaper before it ceased print publication, but it's unlikely that this status survived the "drastically reduced staff" of its online-only incarnation. (iii) Yes, it does matter that the material in question is retreaded blog content. That is not the sort of material a major print newspaper would generally consider reproducing verbatim -- but is the sort of thing an online newspaper, with a drastically reduced staff, might consider padding their original content with. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the Seattle PI is still a good enough source to establish notability. Subject appears to have appeared in multiple RS, and COI primary sources are perfectly acceptable for uncontroversial facts about the subject who released them. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability. The 3 references given include two to the subjects personal, self-published website, and one to a short bio on him as an author, from the publisher of a one of his books. The article contains no 3rd party reliable sources indicating notability. A search through the first page of Google results does not produce any substantial 3rd party coverage in reliable sources, either Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: While researching reliable sources for the Michael Irving Jensen, I was looking at the references provided in the article and it seems to me that much of his "career" section was lifted, nearly verbatim, from his CV at http://www.middleeastawareness.dk/Html/cv.html. Accordingly, I've blanked that section and tagged it as a possible copyright violation. In the event that the article is kept, that section shoudl be rewritten. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He seems to be something of a go-to guy for the middle east in the Danish press. I found plenty of articles in Google news archive either by him or quoting him. But I also found little or nothing actually about him that we could use as the basis of an article. And the copyvio is a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No articles found about the subject, just a bunch of quotes. Ng.j (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The existing sources point to minor coverage or press releases as founder of apparent non-notable website and a case study in a apparent non-notable book. A quick google news archive search brings back nothing on subject. CutOffTies (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has been at the wheel of some interesting projects that didn't work out, ok. But the sources aren't really RS material about him, the one entrepreneur.com page is a profile, and all in all, he just comes up short of being "notable" for the purpose of Wikipedia inclusion. The article is more of a resume, but even with that fixed you would still have an article for someone who has done some interesting things, but not notable things. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No longer exists Ravpapa (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was questionable to begin with. It used to be one of the biggest independent pharmaceutical wholesalers (its website says the biggest, but other sources waffle on that description) in the US, but that in itself is a dubious distinction: pharmaceutical wholesalers are generally not independent, but are owned by health care providers, drug manufacturers, or other companies. In any case, Kinray was a smallish fish in a very big pond.
No matter. The company has since been bought out by Cardinal, so that dubious distinction no longer exists.
The article, incidentally, was created by a user whose sole mission here was to create puff articles for clients of the PR firm 5WPR. The user, User:babasalichai, has since been banned for sock puppetry. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cardinal Health. The fact that the company no longer exists is irrelevant, if it was notable once; notability is not temporary. But most of the hits at Google News are about the acquisition, not about the pre-existing company, suggesting it was not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cardinal Health. The company's listing on the Forbes list implies at least marginal notability, and Kinray's acquisition certainly seems notable to Cardinal's history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardinal Health - not convinced it needs a separate article, but it's worth mentioning in that one (in fact, it already is). Robofish (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was written by a user whose sole mission in Wikipedia was to write panegyrics about the clients of the PR firm 5W Public Relations. That user User:babasalichai, and his numerous sock puppets, have since been blocked, though he keeps popping up with new users and anonymous IPs periodically.
To the heart of the matter: This Hirschfeld fellow is pretty rich, and there was once an article about his divorce suit in a real estate trade magazine, mostly because of its big-bucks alimony demand. He was also quoted once in the New York Times, and once again in the New York Post. That just about covers his notability. According to the article, he was also the oldest-ever competitor in the Israman Ironman Distance Triathlon competition in Israel. I guess that counts for something. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this "3rd nomination"? I can't see a 2nd nom? Chzz ► 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this discussion to 2nd, since I could not find it and there is no mention of second nomination on the article talk page. Someone needs to delete 3d as article, left behind as redirect, to make Prefixindex sane. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Hirschfeld (3rd nomination) has been deleted accordingly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Most of the sources contain only passing or trivial mentions of Hirschfeld. Full disclosure: I was notified about this discussion on my talk page by Ravpapa. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability standards--יום יפה (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: When the AfD was moved, the entry in the log was not updated; consequently, the AfD failed to be listed properly. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not the strongest case of notability ever presented, but I'm persuaded by MelanieN's reasoning in the previous AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like it, but it meets the guidelines. The New York Times, the New York Post, and Bloomberg are pretty good sources. Ng.j (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this name sounded familiar. You're right, I found a lot of Reliable Source coverage last time and added it to the article. We don't have to like the guy, but his notability seems established. The previous AfD was closed as Keep, and I can't see that anything has changed since then. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Playboy CyberGirls, by consensus aren't notable in general; virtually all other articles (for nonPlaymates) have already been deleted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet WP:PORNBIO.--יום יפה (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coed of the Month/Week, and Cyber Girl whatevers, do not meet the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Playboy CyberGirls, by consensus aren't notable in general; virtually all other articles (for nonPlaymates) have already been deleted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet WP:PORNBIO.--יום יפה (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coed of the Month/Week, and Cyber Girl whatevers, do not meet the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:NHOCKEY and any other notability guideline. Non-notable college club hockey player. previously depprodded hence this afd. TerminalPreppie (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC) TerminalPreppie (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player does not meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Not even finding him in hockeydb. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008(talk) 16:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced article about a Finnish band. No significant claims of notability, no real coverage found from independent third party sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quickly found 2 sources to add. Also, there is indication they got U.S. distribution on at least one album via Rykodisc. I had this article watchlisted because it helped me learn that Lodger and The Lodger (band) are different bands.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per milowent.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable corporation. A speedy deletion tag was removed on the grounds that we can't speedy delete schools, but this is not a school, it's a private corporation. Corvus cornixtalk 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well known school in Pune, India. It has been recognised by PNYV.org the official project of UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014[1].
--Irfan 29
^"HUMANITY 4.0 ARTICLES: VICTORIOUS KIDS EDUCARES - a very, very special school in India".
Keep - contrary to the statement by the nominator, that "this is not a school, it's a private corporation", this is indeed a school. It is a not-for-profit organisation but that is quite normal for Indian schools. The page certainly needs much better sourcing but Indian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence so, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be researched. At present it has primary and middle school streams but it is awaiting the evaluation to offer the IB Diploma Programme which it plans to introduce in June.[40] At that point it will incorporate a high school. Our practice has been to keep planned high schools, that are due to open within 12 months, on the pragmatic grounds that, for example in this case, it is hardly sensible to delete the page in March only to recreate it in June. In the unlikely event that the school fails the IB appraisal then it can come back here but for now keeping is in order. TerriersFan (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an exception per Terrier's extraordinarily accurate rationale. But keep also on watchlists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
advert, not sourced, not notable. Jasper Deng(talk) 00:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7/spam. Hairhorn (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a biography of an unnotable person with extremely minor sources edited by one person Rizla (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability here, I think, rather stands or falls with those of GMA Cover Corp. and GlassFrog International Aid Organization. I'm not yet entirely convinced one way or the other, but I do note that all three articles have been mainly edited by the same person, who has not edited much else. PWilkinson (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't particularly believe executives of rather small private businesses deserve their own biographies, especially when the only sources are links to the organizations themselves, reverse links to the wikipedia article itself, twitter accounts and blogs and it contains extensive original research. 70.53.86.226 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. some dubious sources in the article. 5 gnews hits rather than articles about her is not indepth coverage. [41]. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable firm, promotional tone, only refs are self published (tagged since 2008), reads like a promotional website corporate history WuhWuzDat 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: the only fully integrated bio pharmaceutical services company offering clinical, commercial, consulting and capital solutions worldwide. -25 notability points for "solutions", -25 for "worldwide", and -50 for "fully integrated". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the marketing bollocks-speak makes it far from clear, but this is in fact one of the largest conductors of clinical trials in the world. It's a pity that the article doesn't say so in plain English. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bombastic terminology is a reason for editing, it doesn't appear in any of the valid reasons for deletion, did you at least perform any search for reliable sources like I did and MelanieN did?
Keep Needs a massive trim and rewrite; 90% of the information should be thrown out. But the New York Times wrote a full article about it in 2010, calling it "the world’s biggest contract research organization". Also back in 1996 the NYT wrote a full article about the "high-flying" company. The company gets significant news hits ranging from the Charlotte Observer to the Herald Scotland to Reuters India. I hate the article as written, but the company is clearly notable. Somebody should rewrite the article, removing the garbage and replacing it with what can be sourced (I don't have time or I'd do it myself). --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mass of gobbledygook about a notable company. Solution: Keep it, stub it, add the NYT cites that MelanieN found as references, and then let it be rebuilt with reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editor above, keep and convert to a brief referenced stub. doomgaze(talk) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in New York Times and Wall Street Journal. It is one of the top 5 pharmaceutical CROs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quintiles is the largest CRO in the pharma/clinical industry. 20,000+ employees and significant business links to most if not all of the major pharmaceuticals companies. The article needs to be ruthlessly chopped down and re-written, but absolutely not deleted. DoktorDec (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appeared on Star Search and American Idol. Was signed to Geffen but didn't release anything. Only sources are YouTube. Nothing non-trivial found. Last AFD closed as no consensus in 2006 with mostly WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing policy-based in either direction. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus appears to be heading towards deleting all non-finalists for American Idol. The debates here in the past few months have really been over whether the top 3 (or 6, or 10, or 13, or 24), should be kept automatically, and whether perhaps others who have actually met WP:MUSICBIO should also be kept. She is not even close. That's not my problem - I'm an inclusionist. I'm just passing on bad news for this one. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rapper who does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The albums all appear to be self-produced. The only source I can find that might be considered a WP:RS in which some discussion of the subject occurs in depth is the cited article from the Phoenix New Times, which might fall under the usual local arts scene coverage as the subject is claimed to reside in Phoenix. The other references provided are either primary sources, dead links, or trivial coverage; for example, the claimed "article" at ReverbNation.com is actually his artist profile, which itself is a mirror of this article. There is no added evidence since the previous deletion that he is notable as either an atheist or as a rapper, and thus does not meet WP:GNG. Kinut/c 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Phoenix New Times article is fine as a RS and is certainly significant coverage. Google Scholar shows 6 relevant scholarly articles that discuss him in the context of his atheism, albeit briefly. Perhaps not clear cut, but enough to keep it in my view.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, all of these articles appear to contain only a passing mention of the subject; for example, the Shapin article (of which the results include two translations also) simply states The University of Birmingham celebrated with The Rap Guide to Evolution, featuring the ‘African-American Atheist Rapper Greydon Square’, the ‘self-styled “Walking Stephen Hawking”’ with no further mention of the subject anywhere else in the article. The other sources appear to be similarly passing mentions. Can you indicate which of these sources contain actual non-trivial coverage to support a WP:BLP? --Kinut/c 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I already stated that they discussed him briefly, why ask which of them contain non-trivial coverage? The fact that he is being mentioned as an example of atheist artists in these articles is the relevant factor here. By the way, WP:LOCAL relates to places of local interest - Greydon Square isn't a place.--Michig (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another notable article to this wiki. This artist meets an ensemble requirement as he has collaborated and performed with hip-hop artist Canibus. http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2011/02/canibus_at_club_red_last_night.php --Halfsight (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2011
Keep. Just added two links to a CBC documentary which featured Greydon Square. Canada's national TV is a WP:RS, and shows that this rapper is not just a local artist but is notable on an international level.24.125.36.128 (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough per the sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National TV on CBC is a worthy citation in my book Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Certainly exists, hints of his presence here and there, but I don't see reliable, secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of this businessperson. Additional sources, as always, welcome. joe deckertalk to me 00:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Done but I moved the tag over and relisted the debate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
