Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 3 October 5 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete.

Author requests deletion J.delanoygabsadds 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm the creator, I made a typo in the title. Please delete it.

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

The result was not an issue for AfD. Merging / redirecting should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. (

talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Symbian

Symbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has split the main

Symbian OS article Lester 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditte Arnth

Ditte Arnth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't meet criteria for notability. A Youtube video and one small role in an unreleased 2010 film doesn't meet any of criteria at

WP:ENT. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

There is a reasonable mentioning in international media (Google News). The original YouTube video seems to have reached 200'000 downloads a day. — fnielsen (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the news story, the video was pulled and 283 mentions isn't that reasonable. Basically, we've got someone in a video that created a minor YouTube response that is no longer available. The person in the video isn't what would arguably be of interest, it was the video itself. Notability is enduring, this person is not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 05:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this on the bbc website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8258473.stm - the only article able to shed some light on the actress in English via Google was Wikipedia.

If the deletionists wants to kill the article, then perhaps a short mentioning of this actress could be moved/made on the VisitDenmark article. As far as I can determine the close to a million downloads on the four initial days seems to be impressive for a viral video, e.g., Numa numa seems not to reach that figure. — fnielsen (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

ark // 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter LaBarbera

Peter LaBarbera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced BLP of someone who is essentially a blogger who has received very little coverage in reliable secondary sources. A search of google news turns up some articles in the gay press, but all in the context of his group/blog Americans for Truth, which does not have its own article. Since the vast majority of his mentions in the news comes from his group suing a hotel, this is covered under BLP1E and a good candidate for deletion.

Communicate 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Very Strong Keep. First off, the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times among other papers means he is not just a blogger. He has been published in actual publications. While there is not currently a wikipedia article on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, this does not really answer if it is notable. However he has also been connected with two other organizations, which HAVE articles in wikipedia, so you have to consider the full scope of the articles about him. Also, even a search of the homosexual publications will show that LaBarbera has been attacked on multiple occasions. The very vehemence of the hate some throw at him would suggest he is someone of note.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before any decisions are made people should at least consult how the article differs with its most recent edits. Mr. LaBarbera is not "essentially a blogger", but is in fact hated by many bloggers. The hate does not just stem from his recent actions, he has been hated and denounced in the homosexual press for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep digging up more stuff. LaBarbera was spoken ill of in a book published as far back as 2000. The hate against LaBarbera is no fly-by-night phenomenon, but has been a perpetual hate-fest on the part of the homosexual movement for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since, as I have demonstated in the article, a death threat against LaBarbera appeared on a blog that has been praised by Duke University 2 and a half years before the law suit against LaBarbera, and there are other issues connected with him going much further back, the biographies of living people rule cited to try and delete this article really has no relevance.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are inadequate. More importantly, subject is non-notable. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom I'm on the fence about this one. His notability is marginal; if you read his website, himself and others publish their opinions on current events in what is essentially a blog (with comments disabled), so I doubt he could be called a legitimate journalist. So, he is a controversial blogger. But, if this closes as keep and is no longer an unreferenced BLP, then I won't be terribly disappointed.
    Communicate 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You keep ignoring the fact that he has been behind several physical publications. Also, you ignore the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times. Notablity is not just what is going on now. Also, if he is so "non-notable" than why was I able to find two books that denounced him for his activities in the 1990s?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While many people will mock and attack Americans for Truth, they admit it is an organization. This is one quote "Peter LaBarbera, President of an organization predicated on hate and lies ironically named Americans for Truth," it comes from www.annoy.com. Your attempt to claim that LaBarbera is "just a blogger" is not in line with the widepsread denunciation of his "organization".Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The format for AFTAH is very blog-like (except for lack of comments), not a news website. A person who runs a blog-format website is a blogger. As for your other concerns, not everybody who is a legitimate journalist meets our criteria. According to the criteria laid out at
WP:AUTHOR
:
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
I contend that LaBarbera does not meet any of these guidelines, and thus does not cross the threshold of notability on Wikipedia. He is not regarded as an important figure, his journalism is not widely cited, he has not created a new concept, his work has not been the subject of a book/film, or multiple independent periodical articles, and his work has neither won significant critical attention nor a spot in libraries. With reference to your above link, a place that has a phrase such as "morons like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera" is hardly a reliable source when it comes to the BLP subject. Anyway, I have quoted the relevant guideline for this article, so i'll let the rest of the !voters here decide whether or not the BLP subject meets the above criteria.
Communicate 04:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I'm not sure "author" is the correct category for him. He's well known as an anti-gay activist. Are there other activists who have their own articles? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards delete Marginally notable. See this Google Books result and this one. These sources are not written neutrally but they should be reliable since they are published by reputable publishers. On the other hand, these sources provide little biographical context and are mostly about his role as an anti-gay activist. Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion about the sources? There are many sources on Google News Archive. Many were passing mentions, but there may be some more substantial sources that can be used to construct a balanced biography. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am wondering if there are more relistings that can be done to generate more information on Mr. LaBarbera. Also, I am wondering if some of the publications mentioned in the article would merit there own articles where they do not currently have such. I am thinking yes, but I am not sure I want to be the one to start such articles.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - not only journalist of several headlines, but widely discussed opinionist. --Cyclopia - talk 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per nomination and consensus --

"talk" 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Zach Tuiasosopo

AfDs for this article:
Zach Tuiasosopo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested (does that thing ever work?). This man has never played a regular or post season NFL game. He has a notable father and two notable brothers, but notability is not inherited. He fails perhaps

Talk · What keeps her up) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
] 

   * Pittsburgh Steelers (2005) *
   * Oakland Raiders (2005-2006) *
   * Philadelphia Eagles (2006-2007) *
   * Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2007-2007) *

   *Offseason and/or practice squad member only

Never played in an actual game. Non-notable. Thousands of people have been practice squad members of NFL teams, and since they don't have a familiar last name like Tuiasosopo, they rightfully never had articles created for them. Some are even close to notable in other fields, such as

Talk · What keeps her up) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Uh, ok. I understand now. --Cyclopia - talk 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A member of a practice squad and getting in a few pre-season games is not notable. If not for his family would not even be debatable. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge into one of the other Tuiasosopo's articles.. RF23 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I believe it is possible for a player to be notable for their college football career, and perhaps even this player is, the article does not mention it very much at all. It could probably be saved and sources found on a significant scale to satisfy even the fiercest pundits of notablity standards. Maybe. Perhaps. But until that is confirmed and done, then I go with delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Hendricks

Gay Hendricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this person is notable. I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources, most mentions seem to be on websites that are run by the subject himself. Also a bit concerned that the article seems to be promotional. Contested prod. Draftydoor (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Some of his books are from major publishers [1], which is rare for authors this "out there". i suspect that a lot of the references will be printed reviews in New Age magazines from the period. within the New Age, he is quite notable. I will try to find refs to show this. i agree the article is overly promotional, as most new age authors articles are. Im not a fan of using google to show notability, but searching for his full name in quotes and "conscious breathing" book title, gives 16k hits. not bad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least 15 books each in over 200 Worldcat libraries. GNews shows reviews of them in LA Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and Library Journal & quite a number of other places. I don;t see why the nom couldn't find these--they're right there in the links in the AfD nomination. I would not consider him an academic, but he is notable as a writer. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article has no sources.
    WP:BLP recommends the immediate deletion of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. There seems to be plenty of sourcing available through Google news search and AfD is not the right way to get an article cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the policy of "if there's no sources, leave it in case some are found" doesn't apply to biographies of living people for reasons of litigation and defamation. Per
      WP:RS, "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep based on DGG's finds. Newspaper coverage of the guy, and he mentioned in books, makes him notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Crese

Bo Crese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail

general notability guidelines; contested PROD.  Chzz  ►  22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KARK

KARK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A modification to a bike is not notable enough to warrant its own article. In my opinion the modification isn't even notable enough to warrant mention on the individial bike's articles. This article should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per consensus. Only requests to keep come from the subject, who is also the author. --

"talk" 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ernest S. B. Boston

Ernest S. B. Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced; does not pass notability standards for a living person; possible

conflict of interest as the main editor's username is Esbboston (talk · contribs). Another editor attempted to PROD this, which was removed by the original editor [3]. older ≠ wiser 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Saying that something is "from a day job" is a bizarre denigration. Practically EVERYTHING important in the world of science and technology comes from peoples 'day jobs'.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Day job" is a polite way of saying he was working for someone else. If he was running his own company, then the patents might be more relevant to notability. Almost anyone who's worked at a high enough level at a research firm will hold a patent or two. Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of your statement in regards to whether someone is working for someone else or themselves has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of an invention, there is no connection, just a different kind of org chart.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this
    talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ernest S. B. Boston has been publishing writings on a blogspot account for only 2 years and has reached a worldwide audience in that timeframe that is growing purely by word of mouth with a current annual readership rate of 1668 people from over 67 countries. There is also IP address tracking that indicates several instances where one reader has told another reader about the writings. The merits of notability should also look at the total contributions of the individual. Ernest exhibits activity across a wide range of subject matter that is in itself not a common thing. What makes Ernest's first two patents so remarkable is that he wasn't even working in a research department when he made the discoveries of a new chemical that had never been created - and he accomplished the feat in only a day and a half. Ernest hasn't bothered to include his work of computer science which "interfered" with two thirds of his chemistry career.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC) If you examine the patent work carefully you will notice that Ernest is the sole recipient of the patent - there are not part of a group effort as so many patents are in the world of technology research. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable as a chemist. I can verify the patents, but no indication of significance. When very weak notability is asserted in several completely different fields, the conclusion is not that it amounts to actual notability, but rather that an attempt is being made to piece together a case for a non-notable individual. If he were notable as a blogger, there would be no need to try to emphasize the other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found other other patents from other chemists who have used the chemical ATHET(antimony tris(2,hydroxyethylthiolate)) that was invented by Ernest S B Boston as a base for further inventions which were patented in the field of metals passivation for hydrocarbon cracking catalysis. The chemical is marketed by Catalyst Resources Incorporated (reference inside patent 5389233) and used worldwide for a considerable length of time and volume in the production of petroleum products.

see: US Patent 5389233 - Metals passivation of cracking catalysts

see: US Patent 5378349 - Passivated catalysts for cracking process Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Another indication of the importance of the earliest chemical product and process patents of Ernest S B Boston was the act of filing for invention protection in foreign countries, besides the normal protection on U.S. soil. The number of countries filed in was revealed to the inventor only "at least 5" in regards to the nominal extra payment paid for the foreign filings to the inventor by his employer. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Another use of the chemical ATHET is found in a preparation under this patent: Synthesis and thermal stability of antimony tris (thioethyl stearate) for PVC (poly vinyl chloride), where it is used as the feedstock.[reply]

https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11771-000-0024-x

There is considerable activity with the chemical ATHET in Chinese reference by Googling the full chemical name, so it should not be considered a trivial chemical invention, being used in multiple chemical applications by several inventors, all dependent upon the original work of Ernest S B Boston. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - improvements seem to have been made to the satisfaction of all. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Hems pub

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One line article. No assertion of notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is now sufficiently improved; another good result from an AFD. Quite why the abuse was necessary is beyond me. AFD's may not be WP:cleanup, but they tend to be more effective than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another pub... No evidence of notability. Pure advertisement. Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this pub distinguishes himself from the other pubs in the world. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Yet another nomination made without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion per
    our deletion policy. I find it quite easy to expand this stub and have started to do so. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yet another ad hominem attack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read
WP:AGF. To compound your error is merely crass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Neutral At the moment when I suggested to delete, the article had only one line and it really looks like a directory. But now, since a user added more info, I take back my suggestion to delete and I'm now neutral. To Colonel Warden: Everybody has his own way of thinking and interpreting stuffs. If you do not agree, fine with me, but please don't attack the others as your comment was clearly attacking me and/or the nominator. Lets keep the atmosphere cool here and not start a fight when there is a little disagreement. Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD nominators have a
wp:before. Clearly, there was source material that would have been found had that procedure been followed. AFD's are not WP:cleanup.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
People make mistakes all the time. Hey, I voted "keep" for an author who plainly wasn't notable, and I have had to admit error and change it to delete. I'm sure the nominator acted in good faith, even though I disagree with him or her.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that "without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion" is not an attack, nor is it bad faith. I respect that you may disagree with the assessment, but that doesn't mean it is an attack/bad faith.
talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 153

London Buses route 153 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another random London bus route with no notability at all. Again, Google brings up nothing to establish

notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as nominator Jeni (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete London Transport do a better job of presenting this information (TfL Route 153 map, as well as the ability to get a timetable from a specific stop on the route). This route is not particularly noteworthy. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Changing !vote - see below[reply]
  • I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. We have articles on every subway line in Manhattan. I see no harm whatsoever with this article and it is clearly a notable transportation route in London. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have articles for every bus route in Manhattan? That is a more appropriate comparison. We have articles for every underground line, and that works just fine. Do you have any sources to prove the notability of this particular route? I'm sure you wouldn't make a comment like "clearly a notable transportation route" without having something to back it up. Jeni (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JohnnyB256. A London bus line is cleary notable in the original meaning of the word: it is something thousands of people a day deal with. For sure much more notable than thousands of WP article subjects. I see nothing wrong in keeping this article. --Cyclopia - talk 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have much more detailed coverage of London bus routes than of those in NYC -- see for NYC List of bus routes in Manhattan & [[5]] --I am not sure of the reason for the different treatment. The London articles list ever stop. The NYC ones do not. Perhaps our NYC chapter needs to get to work on this. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible. Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for creator Are you planning on creating a history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly on the notabilty of the article and how it is encolpediceadit, might see the point if it was famous bus route or a something that could justify it notabilty.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like with NYC, any bus route in a major city like London is notable and it would be a logistical nightmare to analyze and discuss every one of them to ponder if any of them aren't. --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete relevant info can be merged to parent article; I don't think a single bus route, even for a busy city, meets our inclusion criteria (not a directory, etc.) Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A random bus route article rightly deserves a random vote, so I pick keep. Haha, but really, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now unless reliable third party sources come up. Has anyone else noticed that almost every other keep vote was because there are other bus route articles that exist or because we have articles on Manhattan subways? However, per
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we have to judge this article on its own merits. I did a Google search and found nothing besides timetables, which proves that the route exists but not that it is notable. Google News turns up absolutely nothing. I would love this article to stay too and would gladly change my vote if I was overlooking something, but liking something isn't a reason to keep, sorry. Tavix |  Talk  08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Puzzled, of Lincolnshire, writes: Surely there are other definitions of "notable" than "it's all over google"?--Brunnian (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability guidelines do not show that it is notable only if there are references found via Google. As I have already mentioned, this (as a stub article) is sufficient from what I can see - a start to the history section has been made, and I will be doing some research next week to find more information. Tavik, I know that you weren't talking about me, as I haven't mentioned other articles existing as an argument for keeping the article. However, just because you can't find mention via google of a relatively new route does not mean sources are not available. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ama bit confussed it seems that the reason for keeping is because it ais a london bus route, whoever i live in scotland and i could add all the glasgow bus rotues with sources etc but does that make it notable? Why is london bus notable? However upon reviewing more about these bus i can see these might be notable but will peopel then create article for ever bus route in london?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add Glasgow bus routes, please do, and I am not kidding. A bus route in a major city is used by thousands of people every day, which makes it much more notable than most subjects in WP. --Cyclopia - talk 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Glasgow bus routes would be greatly useful to visitors to that city.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If American cities have their bus routes on Wikipedia, why shouldn't other nations? Its notable because so many people use them, public transport shaping the city's development, and showing its decay as routes are abandoned as factories are closed and whatnot. Good for historical overview of an area I believe. Dream Focus 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 394

London Buses route 394 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random London bus route with no notability at all. Google brings up nothing to establish

notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as nominator Jeni (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This route is not particularly notable, and more detailed information can be found at Transport for London's Route Map for route 394, plus TfL can produce timetables from a specific stop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC) !vote changed - see below[reply]
  • I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Now look. Let's keep this in perspective. As you can see from the graphic at the bottom of this article, there are some dedicated editors who are producing articles on apparently every London bus route. I think that this is a meritorious project, and certainly at least as meritorious as having articles on video games, episodes of the Simpsons and so on. It seems to me that every London bus route, by virtue of being a bus route in this greatest of all British cities, is notable. This one too. I say that as one who has never set foot in London or Britain. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There aren't articles on every London bus route, and there never will be, because a significant number of them aren't notable, and this is one of them. Jeni (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see red links intermixed amid the blue ones, but it's not clear to me that this is a question of notability or rather one of "not gotten around to just yet." I agree with a comment below that these need to be all kept or all deleted. I'd favor keeping.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: how can a bus route used by thousands of people in one of the most important cities of the world be non-notable? --Cyclopia - talk 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible. Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for creator Are you planning on creating a detailed history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the enormous amount of created stubs, this should be a policy-level decision: keep all or kill all. Yes, most are absolutely non-notable, and so is this one, but singling out two non-notable stub out of hundreds makes no sense.
    NVO (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the toher notabilty and encyolpedic reasons what is special about this line that jsutify a article?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, are there any sources apart from corporate and fan/hate sites? There are books on London buses' history, as a system, with some insight into individual historic routes but they don't venture into three-digit numbers, do they?
NVO (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As these are relatively new routes (the 394 is only about 6 years old), there would be little hope of finding mention of them in books at the moment. There may well be some though, and if these articles survive AfD, I'll try to look up at libraries some next week when I get a chance to - as for many of us, life is hectic for me at times! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (

CSD A9) by Will Beback. NAC. Cliff smith talk 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Men Among Mice

Men Among Mice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this

talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even assuming that it wasn't a copyvio, the consensus here is to delete. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanians in Medieval Epirus

The Albanians in Medieval Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Content

talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: 95% of this article belongs to (most of that is already part of)

Principality of Gjirokastër. It's not the first time the specific editor creates a pov fork article [[6]]. Moreover the existing article is mainly based on estimations by medieval chronicles (don't meet wp:rs).Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Material already found in other articles in proper form, in example Albania in the Middle Ages.Megistias (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic POV fork. No need for merge/redirect, as the title (with the wrong article) is not a plausible search term. Block page creator for persistent disruptive fork creation, he was previously warned against doing precisely this (User talk:Guildenrich#Stop forking). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion: The article need some copy editing and some structuring but overall it looks fully referenced. It shows the presence of Albanians as an signified ethnicity in Epirus during Medieval period, and that is an interesting encyclopedic information. I think we have to keep it, but work together to improve it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the issue is not whether the article is referenced, but whether it simply covers the same ground as
talk) 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you Paularblaster, however, as I said earlier, this article gives information on a very sensitive period for Albanians and Epirus. It shows that Albanians were present in Epirus during Medieval ages. And that is particularly interesting. On the other hand, the article should be trimmed a bit, repeated material should be removed, all this could go through the discussion page Talk:The Albanians in Medieval Epirus (It could also be called Albanian in Medieval Epirus). —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pick your reasoning: classic
    mix of primary and other sources. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

i think theres a more serious problem here the whole article is lifted STRAIGHT from 'the ethnic composition of medieval epirus' in 'Imagining frontiers, contesting identities'85.73.218.238 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Seems the present form of the article is a bad copy of this book [[7]] (for example page 134 is same with the relevant section). We have copyvio issues too, speedy deletion would be more appropriate. Great job, i.p. editor!Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. J. King

Arthur H. J. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has previously been deleted due to an expired

PROD
. My concerns with the subject matter are two-fold:

  1. Notability: Google News (and its archives) are bereft of mentions of an "Arthur H. J. King". Google Books produces two results: both are the book Awheel to the Arctic Circle by Arthur H. J. King (1940, sometimes listed as A Wheel to the Arctic Circle). Turning to ordinary Google, it seems that both King and his book lack significant coverage in third party sources, having mainly trivial mentions on the websites of antiquarian booksellers or databases of out-of-print books and the like. Thus far, I can find only two potentially suitable sources: Bicycle Travel and Touring Resources (which briefly describes the book) and the Yorkshire Post obituary from 1999, already present in the article (not available online).
  2. Possible copyright problem: The article strongly resembles a newspaper obituary, opening with "Arthur H J King, who has died aged 84" and containing the phrases "Son Ian King told the Yorkshire Post" and " Mr King is survived by his wife an eight children". This leads me to suspect that the article may be a direct copy of the Yorkshire Post obituary cited in the article. (I cannot prove this, not having any 10-year-old copies of the Post lying around, which is why I'm bringing this to Articles for Deletion instead of trying another process.) --
    Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • How so? Specifically, how does he satisfy the
    Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think that this just squeaks by
ignore all rules. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete On further consideration, this is just too weak to keep.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only two papers whose obits we accept as definitive proof of notability are the London Times and the NY Times--possibly we would for similar newspapers in other countries if we knew about them. In practice, other papers have a tendency to devote some of the articles to local people who may be well known locally, but not notable. So this needs additional evidence, such as reviews of his book, not just listing of it. The publisher is a minor UK firm that was primarily a printer--the book is either self-published or very close to it. As for copyvio, the article is so clearly a copyvio that I think it could be deleted on the grounds alone. If the person is clearly notable , we'd stubbify, but there is no reason to think that. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His 1940 book, Awheel to the Arctic Circle does not turn up in the British Library or COPAC catalogues. Aside from the issue of reviews, we don't even seem to have copies on deposit in major libraries. --
    talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

ark // 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

King's College London Entrepreneurial and Investment Society

King's College London Entrepreneurial and Investment Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable university club. I tagged this {{db-group}} when it appeared, and then withdrew my tag to let the author find sources. However the references are only: (1) General KCL site, (2) The club's own site, (3, 4) student testimonials on KCL site which mention being a member, (5) listing-type mention as a "partner society" whose members get a discount at a conference, (6) listing-type mention among dozens of societies on the Student Union website. This is not the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required to demonstrate notability, nor have I found any more. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I prod-tagged this article recently only to see it deprodded. It is clearly a typical, non-notable student club. Abductive (reasoning) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't have articles on every student society, except for perhaps Skull and Bones and a few others. This one makes no assertion of notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into
    We are not a webspace provider for college students' private clubs. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or merge with King's College London I am the author of the article and this article doesn't have enough references, I thought there would be more, but I think its events are not featured in independent enough sources, I thought it would be easier to find them as this is a big society at King's, but I was wrong. It is featured in a number of student papers, for example the London Student and ROAR, the King's student magazine, but I have no way to prove this, and on second thoughts they are probably not independent enough for Wikipedia. I do think it might be useful for the King's College London page, but that might bring up all sorts of issues with other societies, so I'm thinking just delete it. DRosin (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by

talk) 09:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Movie Forum

Movie Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable website - just another web forum. Speedy removed by anon user. noq (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 anyway, since no explanation was given for removal of CSD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--

Expert 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Jevtić

Nikon Jevtić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable youth player who fails

WP:GNG. He has been on the books of a few clubs but hasn't made a first-team appearance. I know that he has high potential but there is no guarantee that he will play any time soon. Spiderone 16:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think he has. Spiderone 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not; a 16 year old Serb playing in Spain? If he had we would be drowning in a sea of media reports proclaiming him the next Bojan! GiantSnowman 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete and salt per

WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahmed Seddik

Ahmed Seddik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated less than a day after AfD closed with delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed M. Seddik, newly registered contributor has removed my G4 tag twice. Time for a bit of SALT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G4, salt, and ban creator. I can't think up enough punishments, this guy removed the AfD tag from the previous article more than 10 times from IP accounts. Hairhorn (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep Clearly notable, needs fixing not deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casuals United

Casuals United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article takes an extreme racist tone. It presents slurs against British Muslims as unchallenged facts. Most of the sources used don't even mention the subject itself- for instance, there is no mention of Casuals United in any of the sources in the section about the protest against the Iraq War. Quotes from the movement's leaders are allowed to stand unchallenged, despite painting Muslims as "Islamists" intent on a "jihad against Britain". The only criticism is so minimal as to be meaningless - saying that X is opposed by obscure group Y is not enough to make a meaningful rebuttal to the lengthy, quoted hate speech.

While I accept it is possible the author did not intend this, it is nonetheless what this came out as. Unless it can be fixed, top to bottom, this should be deleted from Wikipedia as an attack page. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Christianity is the only way. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The allegations by User:Shoemaker's Holiday appear to indicate a complete misunderstanding of the position, as discussed at Talk:Main Page#Casuals United. The article itself is in no way racist - it reports the existence of a racist group. The slurs against Muslims are not "unchallenged facts" - they are verbatim quotes from its organisers, and, had there been any quotes available by those opposed to the group, they would (or should) have been included. The citation for the quote is not incorrect, as wrongly suggested by Shoemaker's Holiday - it is this article, correctly referenced. The whole article should indeed be improved, based on reliable sources - but the group itself meets notability criteria, and the article itself should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That violates
Wikipedia:FRINGE#Quotations. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If you are saying that it "needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view", I would agree. In my opinion, it is. I wouldn't expect that any reader would treat an avowed member of a football hooligan gang as a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears adequately sourced and notable. If the article is POV in any way that can be fixed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is ridiculous to accuse an article dealing with a group opposed to islamism of being racist. Islamism is a facist ideology like nazism that spans all races. It's true though that there is an Arabian racist attitude towards non-Arabian muslims(and non-muslims of course. 93.161.104.222 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Politically motivated point nom. And I say that a left-winger!  Francium12  17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to have acquired some extremely pointy keeps as well (I do not mean yours). DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I dont think that contributions such as "Christianity is the only way" require any further comment.  Francium12  19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I wasn't being "pointy" - but I was annoyed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problems are ones that can easily be solved by judicious editing. The nominator's statement doesn't say anything about why this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, OR, or whatever else, so the content concerns are not reasons for deletion. If there are problems, either edit them out or just plaster the article with cleanup tags. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the groups meets the threshold of notability; that is, it is mentioned in multiple, reliable sources. Neutrality concerns are grounds to improve and alleviate, but not to delete. Cheers!
    talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready To Rumble 2

Ready To Rumble 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no sources to prove notability. Most likely a

hoax and if it isn't, it's a non-notable YouTube fan film that's still in production. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP problems cataloged by the Delete votes are persuasive. Also those opining Keep have alleged the existence of sources, but have not produced usable biographical ones. This deletion should be considered without prejudice towards a neutral, sourced biography if one can be written, but this is not usable or acceptable as it stands. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Lincoln III

Charles Edward Lincoln III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography, non-notable, fails

Tan | 39 14:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete not notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is questionable. Possibly COI, per
    WP:YOURSELF as author's username (CEALIV) greatly looks like Charles Edward LIncoln III. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, albeit with a complete rewrite needed. Certainly, as a wikipedia article it is poorly written & contains overblown and unduly promotional claims, and since it is pretty much a direct lift from a (presumably) autobiographical piece from a blog the text as-is has no business here. But article tone and COI concerns aside, there are plausible claims of notability on account of his publications & fieldwork in Mesoamerican archaeology. His publications have been notably and reasonably broadly cited and commented upon in the Mesoamericanist/Mayanist literature, and he did direct digs at Chichen Itza in the 1980s (though only for a season or two I think, not the whole decade). In particular, he might be considered notable for contributions to three proposals: 1)that key Puuc ceramic & architectural styles were cotemporaneous with Chichen Itza's, 2)that the "Mexicanised" or "Toltec-style" architectural phases at Chichen were entirely an indigenous Yucatecan development, and not a product of any external contact with Tula, and 3)that Chichen Itza had a dyadic rulership system, not a multepal or monarchial one. Even though these proposals may have remained minority views they have been part of a significant ongoing debate about the nature and composition of Chichen Itza's political and architectural history. His eventual PhD dissertation proposal was less well received, it seems, and can't comment if there's anything of particular note from his subsequent legal career. His political views & commentary do not seem noteworthy. If it's kept, the article would need rewrite to focus on the Mayanist archaeological contribs, as a few independent 3rd party WP:RS's can readily be found that discuss these. But not I think for any of the other aspects. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that Charles Lincoln's appearance on the Washington Post is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CEALIV (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The above user has made contributions only to CEL III pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC). [reply]
Note. The above user has made contributions only to CEL III pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really don't think that any safe conclusions about notablility can be drawn, based on GS counts, raw h-index calcs, or other bibliometric methods alone. There are very many well-known and evident deficiencies in each of these approaches (documented even in our wiki articles on them). At best, uncalibrated search counts & citation metrics like these are rough indications to be used as a starting point, not a final determination on their own. Like Harzing's Publish or Perish website doco says (paraphrasing), "low" citation metrics do not necessarily indicate lack of impact or notability in a field, as there are numerous other factors that skew the results.

    For example, GS does not do a good job of finding citations in books or contributed book chapters. The great majority of hits in this targeted GoogleBooks search are mentions that discuss or reference his work on Chichen Itza; allowing for false positives and duplicates there'd easily be 400+. And if you skim through the two-line extracts given, you'll see a lot are actively discussing his work, more than just trivial or passing mentions. but

    Citation metric searches are also quite sensitive on the search terms/methodology used. For eg, even if a GS/PoP search on "Charles E Lincoln" turns up only 62 citations total, if instead you search on the title of what PoP says is his most-cited work (the contributed chapter "Chronology of Chichen Itza: a review of the literature") PoP finds 49 mentions for this work alone. Similarly a search for the title of his dissertation "ethnicity and social organization at chichen itza" pulls in 43 mentions.

    Harzing's other caveats apply here too—'small' field size (there are only so many publs. per year on Mesoamerican archaeology, and even fewer on specific sites); under-representation of non-english sources (a great deal of mesoam. archaeology is written in spanish, as are about half of Lincoln's works); publishing mainly in books not journals (half of his publs.)

    Really, the better approach is to investigate and read up on the content and assess context in the literature sources that discuss the scholar and his works. That's what I had tried to do in my earlier 'keep' comment, above. In that I identify three particular contributions to significant and ongoing questions in the research field, that Lincoln has made and which have been reasonably widely discussed and commented upon in the literature. To be more specific, I would suggest that these satisfy

    WP:PROF criterion 1, and also note 2 ("person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea"). Consider this selection of excerpts from the relevant literature:

    "as early as 1980...archaeological work had begun to revise our understanding of the Toltecs and their role in Mesoamerica. The work at Tula and Chichen Itza (Lincoln), has enhanced our ability to make such a revision.." --Society for Latin American Anthropology (1983)

    "At once the most thoroughgoing and radical discussant of this problem, Charles Lincoln challenges the conventional assessment [of Chichen's chronology].." --Lindsay Jones, Twin City Tales (1995)

    "The work of Charles Lincoln (1986, 1990), however, challenged the traditional sequential view of Chichen Itza..." --Jessica Christie, Maya Palaces and Elite Residences (2003)

    "Por una parte, nos parece interesante la teoría de la contemporaneidad de los vestigios "mayas" y "toltecas" que sostiene el arqueólogo Ch. E. Lincoln..." Piedad Peniche Rivero, Sacerdotes y comerciantes (1990)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Lincoln was a giant of the field by any strech of the imagination, but neither were his contributions merely workaday ones. His work and proposals did attract a fair amount of interest, commentary and debate, & he's been much more widely cited and mentioned than those H-index scores & GS data indicate. The more I've looked into it the more I can find multiple notable RS's devoting some decent space to his ideas, that could be used to construct a reasonable & informative article. The current text would need to be scrapped in the process, and written afresh. But I think as a wikipedia article's subject, WP:PROF threshhold would be satisfied.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • ps. Just for the record, I personally have no association whatsoever with the article's subject, nor with the several
    WP:RS.

    And to make my position even more clear, the text of the article as it stands right now should be scrapped. It would be feasible however, to replace it with some much more balanced and reliably sourced text that fairly describes his works & proposals in archaeology (including documented criticisms thereof), as meriting inclusion under WP:PROF. Not that I am particularly inclined at the moment to rewrite the article myself; if it's deleted then can I suggest that the closing admin does so without prejudice for re-creation in future, but only under terms that a future re-write not involve CE Lincoln himself, or anyone directly or apparently associated with him. They should not be contributing to the article themselves, for what I hope would be obvious reasons.

    The other concern as to whether or not it's legitimate to assess WP:N on basis of raw h-index calcs alone, still stands but can be taken elsewhere.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

    ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant promotion. JamieS93 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMZ Academy

DMZ Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plain advertisement

Speedy Delete: None. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpyCatcher

SpyCatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little detail and does not meet guidelines. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — S-J-S-F-M-W (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: That is not entirely true as I have found a review from CNET that does show little notability but it does not seem enough to make me withdraw this AfD. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valantis Kapartis

Valantis Kapartis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These players all play for a team that is in the second tier of a semi-pro league system: They may even be amateur for all we know. They also fail

WP:GNG
. I have decided to bundle these because the articles are almost identical.

(I will strike those that no longer fail):

Spiderone 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please Spiderone 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the "keep all" above since the account is a sock puppet. Spiderone 06:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you've alerted us to that finding, but as a general rule, we don't edit or strike or cross through comments made by other persons, and I'm unstriking it. The closing administrator will take possible sockpuppetry into account when weighing the opinions. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under
    WP:ATHLETE, a player qualifies only if he is playing at the top professional level. The team was First Division up until the 2007-2008 season, but not last season and not this season; some of these athletes may not have played first division. Those that have, I think, would qualify. We had a debate recently on another situation where people were playing in the top division of the league of a relatively poor nation, and the argument was made that if a nation's best league isn't fully professional, then the language of WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply. I don't agree with that. The way WP:ATHLETE reads, the players in a nation's highest professional league get princess treatment, whether that nation is the U.S.A. or Cyprus. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't think it matters. Firstly, there's no evidence that they have played (a lot of them are teenagers) and even if they have played it wouldn't matter since they still fail as past AfDs have proven. Also look at the number of red links in teams such as Ethnikos Achna FC and Enosis Neon Paralimni FC Spiderone 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hetlem Capja

Hetlem Capja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail

WP:GNG. He hasn't played in a professional league, just a top-flight one. He hasn't received any significant media coverage either. Spiderone 12:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G11). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INFISSMENT

INFISSMENT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software - article creator blocked and immediately after a new user removed the speedy tag. noq (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is just one of the things that amazes me with Wikipedia being that even good edits from a user that is banned is immediately considered like World War III. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also SALTed for three months. Enigmamsg 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanthak software

Kanthak software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. Article creator blocked, immediately after a new user removed speedy tag. noq (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. Note, user recreated himself as User:Sanghapal25 after the last ban - already put on the noticeboard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Language doesn't seem overtly spammy to me, but this easily qualifies for a db-corp speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete anyway, meets A7 and G11 as advert for a non-notable company. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday (film)

Good Friday (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

i have amended the article. hopefully, you find it more acceptable now ? (Jasonbryan1)
Comment - the article has addressed the subject (i.e. being less about
talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajir Darioush

Hajir Darioush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notable from

reliable sources, none of his films have articles, no refences provided -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination Withdrawn - Could an admin close this AfD please? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot read that text... could you give the reference in the English language? I am not in a position to know Hajir Darioush's contribution in the field of Iranian Cinema - however, I do know that although I looked, I could not find reliably-sourced English-language citations. As this is the English wikipedia, we really need English-language (or verifiably translated) sources of information. If these can be provided, I am quite happy to see if this article can be expanded. I did look, but was unable to find any reliable ones - apart from the two films on IMDB. Any help you could give would be appreciated.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we créu

Yes, we créu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism with no sources. Cheers!

talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "'Yes We Créu': o hit olímpico brasileiro no Twitter". O Estado de S. Paulo. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-08.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Synz

Kayla Synz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Does not meet notability guidelines of

WP:GNG or more specifically WP:PORNBIO. Talk page mentions, as the reason for disputing the prod, Synz work in the MILF genre but the article makes no mention of this. Dismas|(talk) 08:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus (taking into account also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage) identifies this collection of articles as unverifiable content forks and indiscriminate collections of information.  Sandstein  05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb (preparation) and others

AfDs for this article:
Herb usage
Herb (anti-cancer)
TCM Materia Medica (Others)
    Herb (preparation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A

    WP:WALL of many articles created by one editor (Cottonball (talk · contribs)) that is an enumeration of different uses and methods of plant and "materia medica" uses. A previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage) excluded these articles and left the undesirable situation where we deleted Herb (General Usage Part 2) and Herb (General Usage Part 3), but not Herb (General Usage Part 1). In the view of many the last AfD, these articles aren't encyclopedic. See the full list below. Rkitko (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Full list of articles in this discussion:

    Details of
    talk
    )'s analysis of the Latin, for those who want to read it, hatted by the author.

    In TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 1), a line reads:

    wàn nián hāo 万年蒿 Russian wormwood Herba Artemisiae Sacrori

    Given the context, Artemisiae is clearly feminine genitive, but -i is never a feminine genitive ending (it's a genitive ending for masculine and neuter). Further investigations revealed that the plant's name was Artemisia Sacrorum[10], apparently coming from the adjective sacer, sacra, sacrum, "sacred", used substantively as a noun. This implies that Sacrorum is genitive plural. However, this would mean that the proper way to put the plant in genitive is Artemisiae sacrorum, with the second word unchanged. This appears to be the work of an amateur Latin student blindly adding a genitive ending to every single word in the plant name, oblivious to the meaning of the original form. The result is that the list is totally useless.

    talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete The subject is perfectly notable, which is why we already have articles on Traditional Chinese medicine and more importantly Chinese herbology, as well as various already existing daughter articles of those. I don't see the need to create an entire set of redundant articles when we already have some perfectly usable articles, which themselves are actually titled and organized correctly, rather than this mess. This isn't an indictment of TCM, but rather on this extensive, and poorly executed, set of articles, which are entirely redundant with existing articles. Expand the existing articles, create properly titled and organized daughter articles as needed; there's lots that can be done, but this entire set of articles probably needs to go. --Jayron32 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wanted to close this but found it a hard one. The topic is indeed relevant but separate articles in their present state are a borderline case of IINFO. Several articles on the topic already exist and this info could somehow be incorporated. A consensus at the moment is that the articles should not stay in this shape. I'm somewhere between delete and redirect to Traditional Chinese medicine for all of them. Will do one of those in some time, if the nom stays open. --Tone 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


    • Redirect and combine per DGG.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Dennisthetiger and Shoemaker's Holiady. The "latin names" are messed up, the information indiscriminate, the articles poorly named, gross violation of WP:HOWTO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    all of which are excellent reasons for improving this series of articles, but completely irrelevant to deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clyde Parkour

    Clyde Parkour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Despite claims of importance, no indication of this found at

    reliable sources -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronen Altman Kaydar

    Ronen Altman Kaydar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails

    WP:BIO; "Ronen Altman Kaydar" pulls up next to nothing on google and literally nothing in google news, which is hardly evidence of notability. While ghits aren't conclusive, the fact that they don't show any reliable, third-party sources giving Kaydar coverage is. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    check searches for the name in Hebrew, רונן אלטמן קידר. There are quite a few journalistic reviews of his published works (including this in haaretz. Also, his book is held by the library of congress [11] (published under his name before marriage, as stated in the article). here is his entry in the lexicon of Hebrew Literature (in Hebrew, but the picture and the name in English appear). His work was also put to music and filmed. and this is the news-search for him in Hebrew.

    88.134.61.253 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment The links in the article were *added* in the last few weeks, but are much older than that. The request to wait till Oct. 2nd has nothing to do with an expected 'outpouring' of publications but (in my understanding) to enable more Hebrew-speaking editors to read the provided links and make a rational decision. 88.134.61.253 (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to

    talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Picture Perfect (album)

    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No indication that this non-released album is already notable per

    WP:NALBUMS -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    The result was redirect to hodology.  Sandstein  06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Odology

    Odology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Spotted a link to here from the AFD for

    dictionary definition of the word with little to no reference, other than a dissertation and somebody's homepage related to the subject - in short, lacking notability. It either needs fixing or should not be here. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete - appears to be a neologism with little use. --NE2 07:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per
      WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That's an argument for a redirect to Odic force, surely? Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Golly, how all-encompassing Wikipedia is - when I found that in the OED I thought it was really abstruse. This encyclopedia linked from that article looks a useful reference work. If anything, "Odology" is starting to look like a disambiguation page; but I don't think any of these three meanings is really solid enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't oppose a DAB, but there doesn't seem to be much use of the word in the first place, John. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I agree, my !vote is still delete - the remark about a DAB was really in jest because of the number of different meanings that were turning up, but none of them is solid enough for an article, so there's nothing really for a DAB page to point to. Wiktionary-fodder, really, but I don't think it would meet their attestation criteria. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • John, I didn't catch that part. Blame me for not having sufficient caffeine in my system at the time of that post. And you'd think I'd know better.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have done some work for scientists who studied such things as the spontaneous formation of paths through landscapes through uncoordinated human activity, and they called their specialism "hodology".  --Lambiam 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the
      list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Merge/REdirect to Hodology, which has the correct aspirate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marge/Redirect to Hodology, Although there really should be a specific term for such a science, this one doesn't pass any of the tests for an article. It's basically the same as Hodology which is the more prevalent term. Also, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst the original article clearly had BLP concerns, it has now been re-written so that I believe they are minimized as much as possible. The article has been improved with far more reliable sources and concentrates on the legal issues involved. Black Kite 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

    note: page has now been moved to
    Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    View AfD
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A

    WP:BLP problem doesn't just go away just because you don't actually say the name of the rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Comment Maybe, per Harvard Law School's
    Citizen Media Law Project, the article should be moved to "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? See link
    .
    Comment Consider nominating for deletion the entry
    Gilbert Godfried, which is a redirect to Gilbert Gottfried. While redirects are cheap, they shouldn't serve to perpetuate misspelling. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Weak keep or merge (but not to Glenn Beck article, where it would be a
      WP:WEIGHT problem. Note: a merge result of an AfD is not binding on the target article or any other as to whether the editors there consider it worthy of inclusion The issue (if not the site itself) is potentially notable per sourcing, and we're not censored. But how? For goodness sake! The name of the website is itself a BLP violation. We're going to have the same trouble the courts will, how to cover the subject without censorship being sensitive to BLP / attack site issues (which mirrors how the courts can honor free speech yet balance that against defamation and other worries). The [[Back v. Eiland-Hall]] idea is a good one, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the name of an actual case. Perhaps we can merge it into another article (but for heaven's sake, not Beck's!). Is there an article on WIPO domain name disputes? Maybe we can make an exception to BLP1E for purposes of naming this, and call it [[Eiland-Hall]]. A redirect from the site name to the ultimate destination for the content should be okay. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Comment - we could also merge this into the Gilbert Gottfried article, regarding his legacy / cultural impact, or an article about scandalous Internet memes. NOTCENSORED does not oblige us to have a stand-alone article about every subject that is nominally notable; other concerns like this one may justify a merge, and organizing information is not censorship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was madly offensive. It is not a POV issue or an attempt attack Beck. One of my primary reasons is actually to prevent that since a merge would be detrimental to the main Beck article if we fully summarized the information (weight issue) but it can easily support its own. So I hope people will stop having knee-jerk reactions and realize that not everyone is pushing a POV but actually trying to make this a better project.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed my mind -- based on the discussions here and on the ongoing media attention -- to Weak keep for now. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a content fork due to the lack of consensus to feature this website and the controversy around it in Glenn Beck, see Talk:Glenn Beck#Anti-Beck spoof website. JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way. I find it funny that they wanted to create this article but not mention the meme content or website URL; a great way to have your cake and eat it. The meme, Beck's action with WIPO against the website, and the lawyer's response are now getting press coverage in the mainstream media, which it wasn't a couple of weeks ago, so the meme might now be able to be reported carefully in Beck's article. Merge it back in and let normal debate decide if it should be included and how. Fences&Windows 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and Windows said, "JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way."
    ('JustMe' here, now): In point of fact, there is not two prongs of a fork but rather but a single metal probe connected to the metaphorical
    bold." (As far as my motives, as the article's creator, would be concerned: for the record, I have not once advocated for the spoof to find mention in the Beck BLP nor have I contributed any mention of the meme there; from the beginning I believe it merits coverage in its own article: whereas the spoof may at some point merit mention in the BLP, I just am not convinced it has, yet.) ↜Just M E here , now 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - Sorry, I don't think it has. The legal threats have got coverage, a different matter.
      talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    However, WP:BLP does say, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and this article shows poor judgment in the way that it is written. I view this as a delete under WP:BLP only if it's beyond rewriting, and it may well be if the purpose of the article is to call attention to the website. Defamatory statements don't become less defamatory, simply because someone says "Just kidding!" This is why our articles don't include sections entitled "False rumors". Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way that this article is the primary vector of this statement. Moreover, this isn't even the same a false rumor because this is deliberately false and that is explicitly part of the point (as everyone who spreads the meme points out, repeatedly). And yes, they do actually become non-defamatory in such circumstances. Whether we want to give them prominence is a not the same thing, but that may be worth taking into consideration. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some recent work done on refs (some awesome, some only OK, some may not be good enough) Some ideas on improvement on the talk page. Please see my comments above on GNG and reasoning along with the others on NOTE. This could also be looked at as spreading the attack, clearing his name, or simply creating a decently sourced stub thats complete erger would cause too many concerns.Cptnono (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article needs to be renamed, though. Not sure to what, but it has a horrible title right now. --71.255.225.245 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looks like there has been some great recent work done on the article by Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per Ched. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:BLP concerns outweigh arguments that this is notable. I saw that it was ranked #110,826 in popularity, may even have moved up to #110,825 as a result of people clicking on the weblink. Though it has been suggested that this be renamed "Beck v. Eiland-Hall", this is not, and never will be, an article about a lawsuit. Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence. We often talk in jest about murdering or beating up somebody, but there are certain accusations (cruelty to animals, race hatred, sexual crimes) that are never funny, whether they're made in all seriousness or "tongue in cheek". Wikipedia is not a jokebook, nor a vehicle for promoting someone's idea of a joke. But more importantly, Wikipedia takes WP:BLP very seriously, and the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is balanced out by the concept that we don't promote defamation. Mandsford (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? If, by the use of "one's," Mandsford implies the article I "created" equates to its being but my creation, I am afraid I must disabuse of that notion. I moved into distinct article space a paragraph that had been composed by someone else, after I slightly edited it. It wasn't until today that I assisted several other editors in expanding it. So, Mandsford comes along, with an air of a stiff peacock's "tale" (...which type of superiority complex, as always, is more telling of secretly the opposite, in my humble opinion) to offer for our enlightenment: "Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence."
      --Mandsford! On a Wiki? Do you think you are editing Citizendium      ?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (By the way, Mandsford: I also don't care if the article is deleted. But -- and just take this for whatever it might be worth! -- What does bother me, though, is your offputting tone of highly literate Wikisuperiority.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I change my !vote to delete. Here's my rationale. Playing with the edges of things, finding a way to excuse them, brings society down further and further. Which is OK for society as a whole, but on Wikipedia, we hew to a higher standard. (Sorta like Hebrew National hotdogs.) Let's draw the line!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I do sound kind of preachy, don't I? I don't mean to imply that I think I'm superior to you or anyone else, and I'm sorry that it seemed that way. However, I do think that I would be insulting another author by overwriting an article that someone else has worked hard on creating; I despise those smug "it's-my-article" know-it-alls who revert all changes, and I would prefer to be one of many people debating an article, rather than, as I put it, rewriting "beyond recognition". And, like you and everyone else here, I'm concerned about what goes into Wikipedia, and I get the impression from some people that they think that WP:BLP makes no difference because Mr. Eiland-Hall says, "I'm joking". I think that the closing administrator has to look at this as a WP:BLP issue, and when it comes to that, call me Miracle Whip, but I will not tone it down. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a psychologist so I don't want to speculate as to my emotional ailments, but the fact is, I sometimes am kinda moody. Sorry.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, we're good. I don't mind saying that I'm bipolar, but I think that's true of a lot of us type A's. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are really just going to throw
    assuming good faith out like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Recognizing that an article is about a controversial subject doesn't mean one fails to
    WP:AGF. I didn't intend my comment to be taken that way, so thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. The Glenn Beck article has been the scene of numerous "battles" recently, and even off-wiki discussions in forums about how scrubbed the article appears to be.--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sooner or later, THAT was going to happen. The article authors, the people in the discussion, even the press, everybody had avoided mentioning the title of the website because of its supposedly humorous suggestion of rape... until just now. It would have happened eventually anyway. I think it illustrates that it's impossible to maintain an article about the website WP:BLP problems. Sooner or later, someone's going to ask, "why are they being so evasive about mentioning the name of the website" and then post it. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that sooner or later, someone just comes up and says the right thing. There is no BLP concern, it is just the name of the website. BLP is for defamation problems, not for already existing website titles. If there is such a website, and it is notable, no reason to censor it. People, let's not mistake BLP policies for a blanket to cover every potentially embarrassing or negative information. --Cyclopia - talk 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not saying that the name should be mentioned on Wikipedia but just pointing out the obvious: of course, with spaces removed and "dot com" added, the name of the site is mentioned in these 2ndary sources Mandsord mentions -- eg @ the 2nd par of an article about it in the Boston Herald, several par.s down in an article about it in the Des Moines Register, and all the rest.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--to the closing admin, good luck counting all these up (yeah yeah it's not a vote) and reaching a decision--even a non-consensus decision. You have my sympathy. I propose we let one of the newbies do it. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The early !votes were made while the article was under a name referring to the website, and may have addressed a related question about notability under WP:WEB. Also note that many were made at a time when far fewer reliable sources existed than are now in the article. On the other hand, the later !votes come at a time when the controversy is older, so with some benefit of being able to know whether this is a lasting issue or just the day's news. That ought to be factored in. Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Five days is not enough time to determine whether this will be a "lasting issue". My early vote stands as a vote to delete despite changes to the article, which do not address my core concerns. bd2412 T 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I raise my prior !vote to strong keep due to continued improvements in the article, and continued press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep are we trying to hide these allegations? This is political censorship and should not be tolerated! The world has a right to know whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990! In all seriousness, I'd lean to keep in the form of a lawsuit article. The site itself is notable, and the lawsuit is too... I know there's a BLP issue, but it can be avoided by mentioning everyone's assurances that it's a parody. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brit (Eminem Song)

    Brit (Eminem Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Prod removed by author with no improvements. Supposed new song with no evidence, at all. The upcoming album

    WP:NSONGS. Tassedethe (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia

    Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a hoax. External links lead to materials in which there is no mention of this organization. Perhaps the article was created to slander the politicians whose names we find in the article. In the Russian wiki article was also deleted. Gruznov (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In truth, I am not sure if the original article was hoax or not - however, as it is now, it is a valid stub about the movement.
    --Sander Säde 07:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • I decided to be bold and moved the stub to Union of Russian Citizens. Feel free to undo the move if you deem it inaproppriate - otherwise, perhaps we can have an early close of AfD, as the original issues are now addressed. --Sander Säde 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep with the title proposed by Sander. Note that the original was indeed a hoax by a Bloomfield sock puppet. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete unless English language sources can be found. Possible hoax. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is obviously not a hoax (the original justification for deletion) but a really existing organization - per sources.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I see that the article includes Category:Russian nationalism but it seems to be bad idea. Union of Russian Citizens struggle for citizenship rights of Russian-speaking peoples only as far as I know. Gruznov (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not a hoax. Try searching its Estonian and Russian names (vene kodanike liit / Эстонский республиканский союз граждан России). Lots of sources for both.
      talk 03:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    World War XVII

    World War XVII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article posted for AFD by an IP user who did not complete step two. It appears to be a ministub about a manga - particularly a war that happens in the cannon of the related story. However, I see problems with this running very much afoul of

    WP:FICTION. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    IP editor did follow the instructions and included a deletion rationale on the article talk page. "PROD removed by creator with no improvement to article. Fictional event with no indication of real-world notability." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See your talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. See also The Quest for the Sybian andy (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This isn't independently notable outside of the Manga series that I haven't heard of either. I really hate it when anyone tries to focus an article on a fictional term that would be confused with something that does belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that has scholarly articles about "World War I" and "World War II" and even the hasn't-happened-and-we-work-to-avoid-it "World War III" looks bad when it includes a bullshit article entitled "World War 17". Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete given that we don't seem to have an article about the manga MAGCannon this storyline comes from. If we did, this content could be merged into that article. (With regard to Mandsford's concerns, if MAGCannon's World War XVII story were notable, we could title this article World War XVII (MAGCannon story) or something like that to show that we recognized it was fiction. But since it doesn't seem to be notable, that won't be necessary.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I think the main article about a fictional work/universe/series ought to be significant enough to have solid development before sub-articles are started about events in that universe. In this case, the manga series apparently isn't notable enough to have its own main article. And I second user Metropolitan on the issue of naming. --JamesAM (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't even find any online references to the parent topic (the MAGCannon series): searching for magcannon manga -deviantart(excluding DA because a user by that name generates a lot of false hits) turns up nothing at all. While this doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, it's a strong hint in that direction. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Possible hoax or from someone's
      dōjinshi. A Google search isn't even coming up with anything about the alleged manga, MAGCannon, other than being someone's internet handle. —Farix (t | c) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete per Nom. Does not appear Notable. - Knowledgekid87 21:45, 4 October 2009 (AT)
    • Delete Buckshot06(prof) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. It's no surprise to me that the editor who created the page has only edited this and the affiliated pages. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Appears to be self-promotion for a non-existant work. clearly not notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Quest for the Sybian

    The Quest for the Sybian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This, too, seems to be related to some manga as a story explanation - I think this may run afoul of

    WP:FICTION but I'm not sure. Again, the IP user had posted without completing step two. Note, the author has been blocked for removing AFD tags. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    IP editor did follow the instructions and included a deletion rationale on the article talk page. "PROD removed by creator with no improvement to article. Fictional event with no indication of real-world notability." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry Schmitt

    Jerry Schmitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable musician. Has one self-released album and is touring... Wisconsin. Won a battle of the bands in 2007. Seems to fail

    <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    David, I saw your comment on the article talk page. If you can provide the two newspaper articles, and they are actually about Schmitt (not just an article containing trivial passing mentions), then providing them will help you keep the article.
    <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have one newspaper article and should have the other shortly. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete
      WP:BAND #1, which excludes sources that provide trivial coverage. I have been unable to find any sources that provide biographical information about Schmitt.

      Hodag Country Festival appears to be a local contest that is non-notable (the article is tagged with a notability tag), so winning awards at the festival does not confer notability.

      I would be willing to reconsider my position if David Farmbrough can list two sources that provide secondary, nontrivial coverage about Jerry Schmitt. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

      ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ameer Zeb Khan

    Ameer Zeb Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Per another editor's prod: Unreferenced BLP failing to satisfy

    WP:ENT.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: I have sourced the Lux Style Awards page to make the importance of the awards more clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep article about a
      likely available for the subject of the article, even if non-English or not available online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment:
      likely" existence of these histories would make Histories of alien civilisations notable, and that refusal to allow such an article is "systemic bias". I would not however expect such an argument to stand scrutiny at AfD. This is why we stick to sources whose existence we can verify. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was move to project space. This addresses the

    WP:NOR is core policy, any additional usefulness this might have in main space can't override it. I have to disregard Ben Kidwell's "keep and let's publish it" argument, because AfD does not have easy access to a university press.  Sandstein  07:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Language recognition chart

    Language recognition chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a how-to page, and totally unencyclopædic. It's not discernibly likely that any of this material is likely to become encyclopædic or be changeable to a non-how-to format. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Interesting idea, but completely unusable, and would have to be totally re-written. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Transwiki to Wikibooks, seems like something for them... this article has been here since 2004? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Very useful. I see no reason why this would be a "how-to" as it clearly states facts, not steps how to achieve something. It's a list similar to others in the context of grammar, i.e. English conjugation tables. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 13:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being useful does not make a page worth keeping. Also, this is totally aside, but that article needed a rewrite something fierce. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either keep or move to Wikipedia:Language recognition chart. We should keep something like this around to help us identify the languages of articles that are written in foreign languages but erroneously placed here on the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I now believe that a move to the project namespace would be a better decision than keeping it in mainspace, per Lambiam. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it appears that this is repeatedly moved from the project space to the mainspace. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There is some (shallow) discussion on these moves on the talk page. The argument for main namespace is that this page is useful for everyone. The argument for WP namespace is that this page is OR and unencyclopedic. One editor states that this page was never intended to be encyclopedic, but was intended almost as a help page to accompany Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English to assist people to identify what language an article was written in.  --Lambiam 06:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unencylopedic original research, but transwiki somewhere appropriate. A surprising number of editors have worked on this over the last six years(!), and it's oddly useful.--Chris Johnson (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and retitle as Language recognition. their are refs for that, dating back (by memory) to Loom of Language. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That retitle isn't the best one, but do you think that Language identification doesn't cover the encyclopædic portions of the topic? Irbisgreif (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, maybe yes, but this isn't basically an encyclopaedic article but a list or a table. Putting it all into Language identification or Language recognition would bloat those articles. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • True... but we fork articles all the time. Could this be treated as if it were the "Specific Examples" section of, say, Language identification? The trick is that it needs to be sourced to be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right on this one. I can, however, say that for all languages I know of (most western european ones) the information is correct. I don't think lack or sources is on its own sufficent for deletion (unless someone has a high suspicion or even a proof that something is wrong beyond repair). And yes, it's of course not complete. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it could be added -- intact--to the language identification article. that article3 is , if anything, over-general and the examples would certainly add to it. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What would be adequate sources for this? Putting in a grammar book for each language? (May sound crazy, but the question is meant seriously) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not certain reliable sources exist for this kind of thing… Irbisgreif (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    check at the language identification article. And , for example, a book I rely on, C.G. Allen, Manual of European languages for Librarians with a long chapter on each language, discusses this in each case. There are sure to be others. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    DGG: Which article exactly names that book you're talking about? Could you add it to the list. I do think that if this list has problems, it's lack of sources, but I still don't think it's a good idea to merge it with some other article, just due to it's size. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 11:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unsourced, and might be a hoax for all I know. Surprised anyone would want to keep what apparently is a personal essay by somebody that is totally unverifiable and could make Wikipedia a laughingstock if it is not correc.t --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does this look like a personal essay or a hoax? I don't understand your point. It is no secret what letters are used in any given language, and probably all of the content here is verifiable regardless of whether it has been sourced yet. From the languages I'm familiar with, I don't see anything obviously incorrect in the article, which leads me to think that the article was written by editors who know what they are talking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I already wrote above, there's no indication whatsoever that the article contains wrong information. And if there were errors for some of the languages, that wouldn't be a reason to delete everything. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Metropolitan: what about the languages you don't know? The whole point of
    original research and we need to treat it warily. It may very well be a very fine piece of work, or it may contain gobblydegook. It's not our job to verify's somebody's unsourced original essay. People need to supply sources. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication of language guides that are the original research of a particular person.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Who is the one "particular person" whose original research this is? It looks like over 50 different Wikipedia editors (not counting anons) have contributed to this article in the almost six years it has been on Wikipedia. As to the languages I don't know -- the editors who have contributed to this article don't know which languages I am familiar with and which ones I'm not. They couldn't have decided, "Let's make sure that all the languages Metropolitan90 is familiar with have correct information, but we can say whatever gobbledygook we want about the languages Met90 doesn't know, because Met90 won't know the difference." Besides, all of the information in this article is likely to be sourceable. I think we ought to find sources for all the information, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it in the meantime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it is original research by numerous editors. Look, if it is to be kept, then let's recognize it as a case of
    ignoring the rules. I can't very well argue against IAR as I just cited it in another deletion discussion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The editor who wrote it should find a publisher, and then this article can be adapted from that, or from a similar work. Wikipedia is not the first publisher of reference works that are unsourced original research.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The article has been edited by 143 different registered users and 49 different IP addresses, so there is no such person as "the" editor who wrote this. Can't we just agree to move this back to WP namespace where it came from? It was originally created and happily resided there until someone moved it, in disregard of policy, to article space.  --Lambiam 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Priya Bapat

    Priya Bapat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This unreferenced BLP fails

    Lara 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Rock Shooter

    Black Rock Shooter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I don't think it is quite speedy caliber deletion material, but it has almost zero EV.

    talk) 04:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If its already selling that well, then wouldn't that make it notable already? Dream Focus 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about it in Vocaloidism makes it notable. [28] Mentions of this elsewhere as well. Also, its been released as a toy already. Dream Focus 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just proved me right. The sole link between Black Rock Shooter and Vocaloidism is that they share a same voice actor. Concerning the DVD just contains 3 version of the same video clip, less than 10 mins in total, a pay to view teaser which give nothing in term of plot, characters & setting. So the article is near devoid of actual content concerning the anime but clearly is attracting information concerning the "virtual idol" which is not the subject of the article. We know zero information on the anime save that the main character won't be that "virtual idol". --KrebMarkt 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. The article can be about both the virtual idol, the toy, the anime, the dvd, the extremely popular video, whatever. Its about everything with that name. Dream Focus 13:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Exotica (person)

    Exotica (person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete Article was prodded, but ineligible due to previous prod. Single year of noms fails to meet additional criteria for

    WP:GNG. No coverage on XBiz [29], AVN articles already included [30]. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Units in Age of Empires 3

    List of Units in Age of Empires 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Delete. Unsourced, pointless rubbish that adds no value whatsoever. Should be speedied really. --Jack | talk page 04:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adriana Allen

    Adriana Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No

    might. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 04:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 02:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tamara Bach

    Tamara Bach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Appears to fail

    Lara 03:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Book Awards

    Actually, her first book did win awards, perhaps not major ones. “She made her breakthrough with her first novel, Marsmädchen (The Girl From Mars), which was published in 2003 and received several book awards.” "Tamara Bach". KINDER-UND JUNGEDBUCHPORTAL. Goethe-Institut. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

    This information has been added to the article. I oppose deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - she appears to have attracted significant coverage, albeit primarily in German language sources (e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34]. She's also the winner of several major literary awards in Germany: the LUCHS 2007 prize [35] (see also [36]), a Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis in 2004, and several others; see here page on the German wikipedia, here [37]. Now, most of this information still needs adding to our article, but I think it's more than enough to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've added details on some of these to the article, but there's more that could be done if anyone has the time. Scog (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - seems notable in Germany, per sources above. --Cyclopia - talk 17:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per
      WP:ANYBIO. The Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis award win for Marsmädchen and subsequent nomination for Busfahrt mit Kuhn is notable. The Luchs prize seems less notable or at least the German WP article is not citing/referencing it well. Nominator, WP:ANYBIO has "The person has received a notable award or honor..." and not "major." I interpret notable in that case to be notable per WP rules and usually also look over the award article to see if it seem to be a bona fide "notable" subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Withdraw per award win.
      Lara 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Final fantasy 8 guardian forces

    Final fantasy 8 guardian forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A list of special creatures that you can obtain in

    WP:CSD#A7, but I asked the admin to restore it as I felt it didn't fall under any of the categories covered by A7. Calathan (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    The result was speedy keep. Per

    talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Elizabeth Ann Nalley

    Elizabeth Ann Nalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The only claim to notability is that E Nally was once a president of the American Chemical Society (ACS). It is not sufficient as most of the ACS presidents do not have Wikipedia articles, see [39]. She is not notable as a scientist. According to her webpage [40] she is an author of only five peer-reviewed publications. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Other ACS presidents not having Wikipedia articles is irrelevant per
      WP:OTHERSTUFF. Gruntler (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    It is relevant as a part of the argument, see
    WP:OTHERSTUFF: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    First. The Henry Hill award is not a major award. It is given by the ACS division of Professional Relations to those "who have served the profession in the area of professional relations in a unique and distinguished manner". It sounds to me like this is the award ACS bureaucrats give to themselves. She became the ACS president moving slowly along the bureaucratic ladder, being a member of multiple committees and subcommittees over decades.[42] Second,
    WP:PROF is a guideline and not an inviolable law. I presume that the guys who wrote it could not have imagined that somebody so utterly undistinguished, with only 6 publications, was the president of a major society. However, ACS often tends to select non-notable insiders for their post of the president, see their list [43] We should apply some common sense here. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of aircraft improvements

    List of aircraft improvements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is not encyclopedic. It is a random collection of things that may be incorporated into aircraft in the future. They range from soon to be used (geared turbofan) to other random topics like filling wings with helium. Many of the topics listed have their own articles, and, in my mind, that's where they should stay. This article has been discussed at |WikiProject Aircraft proposed for deletion. The original author objected, moved some content, then moved the article. After more discussion, we still feel that the article should be deleted. SidewinderX (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Forget the nebulous content, the intro alone is enough to earn this the chop. Still trying to work out what it is actually trying to say. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's not WP's job to predict the future or advocate for change, worthwhile as those things are. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Incomprehensible crystal ball-type article on a huge and non-encyclopedic topic, - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Per

    talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Marques Anderson

    Marques Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article has no references, and seems highly unlikely that any information in it is true. It also has a giant mass of cluttered, irrelevant text at the bottom. Saebjorn! 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Seems clearly notable under
    WP:ATHLETE. He competed at the highest professional level in his sport. If you click on the link in the infobox, it leads to his NFL profile page, so it seems clear that he's an actual retired player who played for those teams. The response to the gobbledygook at the bottom of the page is simply to delete that text, not delete the whole article. --JamesAM (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Keep Passes
    WP:ATHLETE. It is easy to confirm all the the football-related information on google. If confirmation cannot be found for his philanthropy then those sentences can be removed. Gruntler (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Keep but delete post-football career comments about energy and education unless a reliable source can be provided. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. I've never heard of him, but he had a five year career with the NFL (per Google). End of story per
      WP:ATHLETE. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Keep I'll use this nom as an example (no offense to the nominator) but the NFL.com link in the infobox, can be considered as the link to verify all the info. He played in the NFL thus he passes
    WP:ATH.--Giants27(c|s) 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (

    talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    George V (descendant list)

    George V (descendant list) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is

    WP:OR. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The

    Line of succession to the British throne article does not include data on birthdays, deceased people, or generational data, or even comprehensive list of illegitimate people. Minor details on Catholics are included. It is difficult to see family relationships from the article. While I agree that millions of geneological names are not required for Wikipedia, there are many ancestral tables in articles. Besides the descendants of George V are of particular geneological interest. Pacomartin (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    To whom? What makes it encyclopedic aside from nothing? 142.68.80.29 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Part of the reason I assembled this table was most geneological sources that I found were spotty and missing names. For example see http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en&m=D&i=1152120&v=5&t=L&bd=0&color= . The 100th anniversary of the creation of the House of Windsor will be a celebration and an assembly of all the living descendants of George V is being proposed. The Catholics may be re-instated into the line (or not). The illegitimate bloodlines via Princess Mary are openly acknowledged. Even though Emily Shard is illegitimate she still applied to The Queen for permission to marry on 12 February 2008 in compliance with the Royal Marriages Act. It has also been proposed that the line of succession be modified to be limited to only the descendants of George V, rather than all the descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Since the descendants of George V almost all live in the UK, the line of descent would be more closely associated with the country. I think this article is a valuable resource and should not be deleted.Pacomartin (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Most of the the information may be located in various places in other articles but not in as appropriate a format for many purposes . We can say the same thing in more than one way, if the presentation is helpful, we are NOT PAPER Assembling available information and putting it into a table and clarifying it is not original research or synthesis--it's the routine way we write encyclopedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that WP:SNOW would be necessary... Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some external references that contain some of the same information. It is not completely up to date since it does not include some of the descendants of bloodlines that go through illegitimate lines. It also does not include summary statistical data. I move that we close this discussion.Pacomartin (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't see information not confirmed by the individual articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia articles are not sources. All of George V's descendants are not encyclopedic nor is all of the information encyclopedic. Sure, we are not limited as a paper encyclopedia but do we have to be a joke? 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shayne Hayne

    Shayne Hayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I believe this fails

    Lara 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Comment: Rugby league biography guidelines have been voted upon and ratified here, #6. GW(talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, referee that is not (yet) notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hayne refereed the NRL Grand Final just yesterday - this is the biggest event in the Australasian rugby league year. This makes him one of the two top referees in the game. Surely this is notable. The article could do with some work, but Hayne is certainly worth an article. Dean B (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep shows the (considerable) limitations of relying on a google search, the grand final is the equivalent of the superbowl here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Although the article could do with improvement, keep per Dean B. LunarLander // talk // 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Crap article but the subject is notable and referenceable. Made a start but I am not able to do any more at the moment.  florrie  23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — florrie  23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He is an international referee and has refereed domestic grand finals. Mattlore (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, I have added an infobox and free image which should be enough to keep it. But there should be a little more sourced information, I believe.  The Windler talk  00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The referee is just as notable as the grand final players, all of whom have articles. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I believe that the commonsense approach with refs would be to judge them by the same criteria as
      WP:ATHLETE, and by this measure, Hayne would pass easily. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I was previously going to close this, but I wanted to make sure there was consensus, which there now is. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathew Craig

    Mathew Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Previously prodded. Biography of non-notable local DJ. 3rd-party references fail to address the subject in detail, fails

    WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Per DGG and others, there are sources here, but they are not reliable. Indeed, some are the company's own press releases. Others are passing mentions. Doesn't need GNG on this basis. Black Kite 10:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gelato Fiasco

    The Gelato Fiasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable ice cream parlor. There are thousands of ice cream parlors around the US, nothing to indicate why this one is more important than any other. Disputed PROD.

    L0b0t (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Weak Keep: (Note: AfD notice not yet on page). Beyond refs already in article, I found this 9/21/09 feature story in Mainebiz: [44], and this compilation of news coverage on their place's website [45]. This article is already much more expansive than "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." [46][47]. I doubt 99% of ice-cream parlors (actually gelato in this case) have this much coverage; not saying its a strong case, though. --Milowent (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mea Culpa This mess is my fault and I apologize. I sent article to AfD using Twinkle, went to work, came home and found no tag on article and no evidence in history of having been sent to AfD. I thought the listing was maybe incomplete or it didn't stick so I used Twinkle to AfD again and now we have 2 listings but I think only one of them is listed on the AfD page. Please somebody, show me what I did wrong, how to fix it, and how to avoid it future. Thanks.
      L0b0t (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Upgrading to Keep. Plenty of coverage. [48] ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can tell you one thing that this is likely to get tagged for deletion again if we can't expand this much longer. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I say its not really a notable corporation, not publicly traded, ect. I would delete it along the guideline of
      WP:ITEXISTS. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Essay, not guideline. Gruntler (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note, I exist. Alan16 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't see the
      general notability guidelines being met (only one source appeared to be substantially about the subject and independent, and it's a dead link), and I don't see the Intuit grant competition—either being a finalist or, should they win, winning it—as being a specific claim to notability sufficient to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Weak keep. It is very well covered, and there's very little cost of keeping it. Saebjorn! 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the sources found by Milowent. This article from Mainebiz provides significant coverage (multiple paragraphs) about The Gelato Fiasco. Also, this article from The Main Switch provides information about the origin of the ice cream parlor's name. These two articles should be enough for The Gelato Fiasco to squeeze past
      WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Weak keep - I think the sources uncovered by Milowent are just about enough to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Mainebiz article is straight Public Relations e.g. "Davis and Tropeano plan to keep The Gelato Fiasco competitive by sticking to their number one priority: the customer." The Maine Switch has "Inside that specially tuned freezer, you’ll find an ever-changing array of sweet delights." Such articles are not RSs. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Appears to be notable, thousands of ghits, although I agree that press agentry is at work here. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – It sells ice cream. It has a website. It has been mentioned in tiny quantities in tiny news outlets. Were I to get a job at an ice cream shop I've just described myself. I don't deserve an article, and neither does it. Alan16 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were to get a job at an ice cream shop why would news outlets write about you? Are you a particularly extraordinary scooper? Also, treating ice cream and gelato as being one in the same might be considered unfair or even uncouth by connoisseurs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I imagine I would be all of the above, that wasn't the reason for the newspaper comment: I have been in the newspaper for sports/music stuff. Either way, I'm sure that were I to scoop, I would be particularly extraordinary. Alan16 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it I've been in the newspaper also. Do multiple mentions in the police blotter amount to substantial coverage? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese Challenge

    Chinese Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-existent tournament. Was pencilled in but later removed from the Challenge Tour schedule. wjematherbigissue 15:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Tewapack (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathryn Borel Jr.

    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable author. There are a few references, but nothing to write a biography from. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article says she "was" a columnist there. Even if current it would not make that self-pub, as she is not the publisher of that newspaper.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_4&oldid=1142643164"