Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 5

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season

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 a complete content fork of the article 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. The latter is the main article and is the same format as most other seasons. The timeline presents a different format, which highlights every category change. However, due to the low activity of the year, the main season article already covers all of the information found in the timeline. Furthermore, there were no simultaneous storms (which some might argue would lend useful to the timeline format). Therefore, I propose the timeline be deleted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There a are of lot of good timelines around Wikipedia, but this is not one of them, as it is, as

  talk) 22:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• odelete plz. Auree ★ 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Hink.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. No need for a seperate article(changed to keep, see below), it is however, a likely search term. Perhaps some of the information, specific times etc, could be incorporated into the existing article in which case it would not be appropriate to delete the contribution history. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, all of the info in the timeline is already in the main article, with the minor exception of the exact timing and location of Danny's landfall and each category change for Erika. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main article covers it, and I doubt this will be a common search term. First Light (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we have several articles with similar titles differing only in the year. Someone might use the search function for different years. So I see no harm in redirecting.Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep Many of the atlantic hurricane season articles have these accompanying timeline articles, see this search result. It seems like a standard format to link to these articles in the "Storms" section, as a more succint way of summarising the events as a function of time. I'm changing my !vote to keep because it is not appropriate to delete one article for one year from what looks to be a consistent and systematic method of organising information for all years. Deletion would require a much wider discussion including all of the "Timeline of the yyyy Atlantic hurricane season" articles and not just this one. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we realize that it is standard format for a season to have a timeline. However, as for the case here, it is being nominated because the Timeline is basically a content fork, basically just repeating what is in the season article. What's the purpose of something that just repeats what is in another's article? Additionally, the season had very little in the way of Impact to any landmasses, which is typically a big part of a timeline.
  talk) 11:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I didn't realise until I checked, it wasn't clear in the nomination, not all users reading and commenting on AfD will have a background in editing hurricane articles. I still say keep as it seems a nice consistent manner to summarise the events as a function of time and I feel a wider discussion is first required as to the purpose of all timeline articles as a whole (unless you can point to that discussion/policy/guideline) since most contain at the very least partial content forking. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pah hink. HurricaneFan25 12:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Carbonero

Sara Carbonero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not exactly notable in her own right--only current information about her is related to her relationship with Iker Casillas (World Cup incident two and a half years ago that can just as easily be put in his article) and how she was voted sexiest journalist in Spain in 2009

• Keep she appears to be a pretty big Spanish celebrity and sixteen different language Wikipedias have an article on her. If any one knows German it looks like there is a lot of content at de:Sara Carbonero that could be translated over. JORGENEV 06:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I added one claim to the article. The German WP article simply has more words for essentially the same content. The only other topic they discuss is the connection of the Carbonero World Cup incident to the role of women in Spain, which seems a bit far-fetched to me. After all, she's not just a woman sports reporter but the girlfriend of the goalkeeper. All in all I do not see her historic significance (yet), but the extensive coverage in multiple important mass media makes it hard to ignore
  WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as "la reportera más famosa del momento". Loads of coverage can be found that doesn't even mention her boyfriend, such as [1], [2] and [3], and some of the coverage that is about the relationship, such as this, focuses on the implication of the relationship for Carbonero's work as a journalist, so is very definitely about her rather than Casillas.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Quite a notable reporter in Spain.--Braniff747SP (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was non-admin close and redirect. An AfD wasn't really necessary for this article. As that this concerns a redundant article. There was no relevant material to merge into crankshaft position sensor, I simply redirected to the more relevant entry. Trusilver 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crank sensor

Crank sensor (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 is redundant, with almost all of its content included word for word in the more complete crankshaft position sensor article. Destynova (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and redirect - per nom. The article could use some sources, though. Trusilver 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is Articles for deletion. Don't bring articles here when deletion forms no part of what you want. When you see
  Project:duplicate articles, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Obviously there's only one subject and they should be merged, but as a matter of simple fact this article was created in 2006 and the proposed target in 2009, so that's the redundant duplicate and not this one. It is normal, I think, to redirect to the older article where there's no compelling reason to do otherwise? No admin action required, anyway, as the merge will leave a redirect with history. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, It's obvious what needs to be done with this article, so I'm just going to do a close of this AfD. I've already gone through the article and there really isn't anything to merge into the new one that wouldn't be redundant, so I'm simply going to redirect. Trusilver 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Bhardwaj

Raman Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

as per last AfD where no one !voted. fails WP:CREATIVE as a TV presenter/reporter and WP:BIO. besides the source in the article, the rest of the coverage merely confirms he's a reporter. note he has a namesake who is a hair stylist. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears notable based on Category:STV newsreaders and journalists and the number of people in it who appear as notable as he does, including Alan Saunby, Anne Scott, Joan Ingram, and Nichola Kane. He appears to have a large Twitter following, has done reporting archive on the station's website, was mentioned in a local news report, and mentioned in another Scottish Newspaper. Seems notable based on like articles and independent news coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Err ... he "appears notable" because he's listed in a category with other presenters who, themselves, might be notable? Nonsense. Not only is
  notability not inherited, never mind venereal, the GNG requires that the subject be cited in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent sources. Twitter feeds don't constitute independent sources. A self-submitted bullet point bio on a newspaper's blogsite does not constitute "significant detail" or independent. Pulling up a search for him on Google UK shows the top hits being the usual ones for insignificant subjects: this Wikipedia article, his Facebook page, his Twitter page, his Bebo page, his Linkedin page, his Google Plus page and other forums and social media. A Google News UK search, by contrast, turns up empty. Ravenswing 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There's no coverage of him as a TV presenter. The only sources I can find talk about him running in a charity race and playing cricket. His Twitter following isn't relevant, and
  notability isn't inherited. Lagrange613 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  Tom 09:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Khan

Sima 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)

A Pakistani socialite. Only source in the article is a photo gallery. I'm unable to find any reliable sources about her. Article has been around for five years. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability. Article unimproved since creation, and nothing to suggest that improvement from this bare stub is a possibility. Ravenswing 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is in no way notable.Vincelord (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. --Braniff747SP (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not asserted, and I agree with Ravenswing that this stub seems unimprovable.
  Tom 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Smith

Herman Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sure why or how the subject complies with

• Delete. I'm not sure how a web search for such a specific phrase tells us anything about notability of a subject who was mostly active in the pre-Internet era, and many articles about notable subjects are created in reaction to their deaths, that being a time when reliable sources are likely to be published. In this case a much more telling indication is that a
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There aren't any references here, and I couldn't find any to add (admittedly, I only looked online for 5 minutes). Notability not asserted.
  Tom 09:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius Chişu

Flavius Chişu (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 about a footballer who fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  ^talk 13:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyo Rioku Jutsu

Kyo Rioku Jutsu (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced article about an organization with no signs of notability. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems like a no-brainer. The article has no sources and makes no claims of notability. There's certainly nothing there to show it passes
  WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  Tom 09:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was userfy and delete. Page has been moved to User:Rbfisher/CVonline, preserving history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CVonline

CVonline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

(contested prod) promotional article for non-notable web page. Ref is to promotional page by web site's owner and article creator. No other indication of notability and a search turns up nothing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional. Non Notable Sources do not establish notability. The wikilinked articles are all by the same user, and they should go as well.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi - the historical CVonline resource was heavily used by the computer vision community, with almost 900,000 front page accesses in the past 10 years. It linked about 2000 core topics in computer vision into a nice hierarchical structure.

• Over the past few years, about 1000 of the 2000 topics have appeared in wikipedia, but there is no structure and so users, especially beginners, will not recognize the connections and generalizations between topics, which is what the hierarchy provided.
• The criticism that it is promoting a non-notable web site is a little beside the point: the purpose of this wikipedia page is to provide an anchor to the hierarchy. The hope is that the current external CVonline web site actually will fade away as the community develops the wikipedia content.
• One can provide this hierarchy and anchor outside of wikipedia, but then the community cannot easily collaboratively develop the hierarchy.
• There is no commercial or personal benefit to this page - it is provided as a public service.
• Having this page benefits everyone and provides no individual with special benefits, so I request that it should be left in wikipedia.
• I'd like to make a similar argument for the other computer vision list pages that we have created that have been flagged for deletion - they are part of the knowledge structuring that the computer vision community finds so helpful. They have only been up for a few weeks so have not yet had time to evolve inside wikipedia.
• If you like, I can request testimonials from the top computer vision scientists worldwide about the benefits and impact that CVonline has had, and what I hope it will continue to have by moving the structure into wikipedia. Eg: in the UK: Andew Blake, Managing Director, Microsoft Research Cambridge, David Hogg, Vice Principal Leeds University,
• Bob Fisher, Professor, University of Edinburgh (Rbfisher) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• The issue is
  notability, which needs the subject to be discussed in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Testimonials of users or supporters of the site cannot be used. But if as you write the site has worldwide benefits and impact it should be easy to find references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• On the other hand, the "list of X" pages that are linked from the cvonline page provide a resource not available elsewhere, and are the pages that users will want to edit when they create new wiki pages. The cvonline page provides an anchor to link all of the 'list' pages. We could easily move the links to the 'computer vision' wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbfisher (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rbfisher suggests a very sensible compromise.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what that compromise is. Articles on the site could be used if they were used as references, and may already being used as such. I would object to the index pages being linked: I had to remove a large number of such links after Papadim.G spammed them to dozens of articles to which they were little related, and now have prodded after he copied them wholesale here. But anyway, this AfD is about the page CVonline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the suggestion to delete the CVonline page and move the links to Computer vision although I've just noticed that that article is assessed "B class" despite cleanup and inline tags, which I don't think can be correct.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Papadim.G is one of my assistants and the cross linking that was deleted was our attempt at enhancing the utility of wikipedia. For example, CVonline lists 28 different curve representations, included in the List of image analysis object, world and scene representations page. The closest corresponding wikipedia article curve barely touches on a few of the representations. About half of the actual representations do not have a wikipedia article, and most of the remainder do not link to any of the alternative representationRbfisher 07:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's nice that the people involved with this website wish to help Wikipedia; we can always use more volunteers to develop and improve articles. But that's not the issue at stake here: it is whether the subject meets the pertinent notability guidelines - either
  WP:WEB or the GNG - to sustain an article. Has CVOnline "... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself?" Has it "... won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization?" There's no evidence that it has, and thus an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to user space. Rbfisher asserts some utility to CVOnline users to having a Wikipedia page, and I don't dispute that. But
  WP:N doesn't contain a clause that says "except if it's useful for somebody", so it doesn't belong in article space. How about a move to User:Rbfisher/CVOnline? Or it can be another section in User:Rbfisher. Lagrange613 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply: Userfying is only appropriate if the intent is to build the article up until such time as it meets the requirements for articlespace. Since
  Wikipedia is not a web host, it's inappropriate to keep this content around on nothing more than the premise that CVOnline users need there to be a Wikipedia page containing it, whether in articlespace or in userspace, their convenience notwithstanding. Ravenswing 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah, good point. I guess my argument more amounts to move to another website, i.e., delete. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This clearly doesn't meet our notability requirements, or any realistic definition of what belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm shocked that a professor of informatics at a major university would think otherwise.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I accept the opinions that the CVonline page should be deleted. But there are still 3 open issues: 1) Are the 'List of X' pages linked from the CVonline page viable as wiki pages? There are many other 'list' pages, eg.
  Computer Vision page? 3) If on that page, where? There is already a criticism about the 'See Also' section, although this strikes me as an ideal location. Should this discussion move to another page? If so, where? Rbfisher 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, they are not viable, i.e. good WP articles, as they they bear little relation to WP. for the same reason they should not be added to any other page. See also sections are for links relevant to the article which don't appear in the article, and generally contain only a few carefully chosen links, if any (as in many fairly comprehensive article all relevant links appear in the article). These are not contentious issues: Wikipedia is not a place to host content, including lists and indices, copied from other sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the benefits of a common style, but lists are common knowledge structuring devices.

Here are 3 examples: 1) academic book indices are generally not simply alphabetic lists of words/concepts, but have a hierarchical structuring into subconcepts. 2) Modern versions of the printed Encyclopedia Brittanica included a resource called the Propaedia, with extensive sets of lists. 3) Some of the most useful web pages in my research area are essentially structured collections of links, such as the Kalman Filter homepage, Computer Vision homepage, Face Recognition homepage. It is not a historical anomaly - it is an attempt to help structure snippets of knowledge into usable larger structures. Search engines are great for dealing with flat knowledge resource, but it seems sensible to also exploit human expertise, and wikipedia is less than it could be without them. Rbfisher 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: All that is well and good, but Wikipedia has notability criteria governing what articles can or cannot be retained, and the question of meeting those criteria is the only issue at stake; whether or not an article is "useful" or not is a philosophic question outside our scope. The ones specifically pertaining to this one are
  WP:GNG. Which elements of those criteria do you claim this article meets, and based upon what evidence? Ravenswing 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See also
  WP:ITSUSEFUL. Many things are useful to someone or many people but that is not alone a reason to add them to Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Quote from
  Computer Vision. Rbfisher 17:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Usefulness on its own is not a reason. But no, they are not useful navigation tools. Looking at the first one it lists "Land management", "Bengali", and "Cartoons/Sketches", completely unrelated topics. Besides it has links for none of those three, so in the very unlikely event that a reader stumbled upon the page when they were really looking for Bengali it would be of no help to them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you reset the deletions on all the 'list' pages until Nov 1? To give us time to set up alternative linking outside of wikipedia. Rbfisher 23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You can copy them yourself and host them yourself.
  Wikipedia is not your web host. You can always get and install MediaWiki yourself if you want to host them on a site like this, and there are other alternatives at that link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have copied the pages in anticipation of their deletion. The issue is the that it will take a little while to set up an alternative service. The pages have been used by 5-10K people since they were installed in wikipedia a month ago. There is nothing offensive in the pages, they are a non-commercial public service, they are using only a 100kb and they will go soon. Deleting them tomorrow will disadvantage scholars and students worldwide. WP has nothing to lose by the short extension to the deletion date.Rbfisher 08:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• as has already been pointed out "
  it's useful" is not a valid argument against deletion. Many things, arguably most things on the internet, are useful to someone. That does not mean they should be included in Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Suggestion. This sort of thing (a useful collection of pointers to Wikipedia articles on some focused topic, that may not meet the internal criteria for notability of lists within WIkipedia itself) is instead much better handled as a Wikipedia book. The "Book:" namespace has less rigid standards about what can appear there and the book formatting functionality works well with this sort of list. I suggest migrating/transwikiing over there. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lysakov

Victor Lysakov (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 is about a Russian painter without coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The biography from the artist's web site lists exhibitions at the Tretyakov Gallery, and Pushkin Museum, but he does not appear to be part of the permanent collection, nor can these exhibitions be confirmed in reliable sources. Searching in English and Russian turns up no coverage in reliable sources. The Russians search was done using machine translation so perhaps somebody proficient in Russian checking would be welcome. I did find this English language press release. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete There appears to be several
  notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kogan

Alexander Kogan (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 is about a journalist without significant coverage in reliable sources. This passing mention was the most I could find. Whpq (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't really able to find anything else myself. Many of the Alexander Kogans I came across were totally different people, which somewhat hindered my search, but regardless I don't see significant coverage anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Various searches turn up nothing beyond the odd passing mention. Seems to fail
  WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This. Search results turned up with nothing but websites with either information retrieved from this Wikipedia page, or some random person not relating to the one described in this page, at all. - DARKSHADOWMIST

• Delete Article doesn't have any
  notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. There is next to nothing refuting the claim that this is a notable topic in light of the sources presented, which take it beyond a dictionary term. Also, no-one has established that the stub is problematic, as opposed to merely inadequate. Those arguing for a redirect or a merge have not established that "Americanism" is the same as the proposed target (eg "American nationalism"). The consensus is to keep.

Americanism (ideology)

Americanism (ideology) (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 barely an article and it lacks any references or sources. If there's anything of substance in the two or three sentences it contains they can be added to

• Feh ... I don't know. The Washington Times has used the term, but I don't believe that's a reliable source. John Pilger in the New Statesman also wrote about it. All of the other news articles I've found online about it refer to anti-Americanism. Your results may differ. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah. Anything of value can easily be incorporated into another article rather than leaving it as a stub which, quite frankly, lacks in substance. I've never heard or read this word used in this manner. Americanism generally refers to a word or phrase originating in the U.S. Or this article could be incorporated into the Americentrism article. I'm just saying, there seem to be several articles saying the same thing under different names. HazelGHC (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've noticed that this basic concept has been missing from WP for a while but haven't taken it on yet due to the difficulty of writing the piece without engaging in so-called "original research," quote unquote. This is a correct title for the piece. This is an encyclopedic topic. It's a bad early effort here. A simple Google search for the term will demonstrate the pervasiveness of the concept. When I eventually go after it, I'll probably start with the concept of "100% Americanism" and contrast Americanism with Bolshevism, which was a common published juxtaposition of ideological concepts when the term launched in the early 20th Century. Like I say, this is a tough piece and it has been obviously missing from WP for quite some time; keep and improve through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you are right; there are lots of possible sources under "100 % Americanism", but I'm not sure they're reliable. Anyone who wants to take a crack at rescuing or incubating this,

go right ahead. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As for myself, I'm not gonna do work on this one under the gun, this is probably a three day writing project to get it more or less right. This is not the Article Improvement Workshop in any event. The term apparently was popularized by Teddy Roosevelt in a book by the same name, published in 1915 — if someone wants to start digging, that's the era to start looking. The term went out of vogue at the end of the 1950s; Billy Graham wrote a work on the topic in 1956. For a recent book, see David Galernter, Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion (Doubleday) or Michael Kazin and Joseph Anthony McCartin, Americanism : new perspectives on the history of an ideal (University of North Carolina Press, 2008). If I'm starting to work, I've got those in front of me from the get-go. Here's a few more: David Jayne Hill, Americanism: What It Is (1916), John Spargo, Americanism and Social Democracy (1918), Warren G. Harding, Americanism (1920), Ole Hanson, Americanism and Bolshevism (1920), Woodrow Wilson et al. Americanism (n.d., circa 1919). And so on. There is a huge radical literature and a huge patriotic literature dealing with the ideological concept. A WorldCat search of "Americanism" in book titles returns 3,402 books — obviously some duplicates, but there are probably about 1500 books and pamphlets, conservatively, using the word in the title. And yes, many or most of them are dealing with more or less the same ideological concept. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With what, I'm not sure exactly. This just seems to be a rephrase of "American Patriotism". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can actually be improved and sourced, that would be great. The point I'm trying to make though is that it seems to be a three sentence rehash of information available in several other articles. It's possible for an idea to exist under different names. Is this concept unique enough from American nationalism and Americentrism to merit its own entry? Could it be merged with American exceptionalism? This splintering of different aspects of the same topic makes it difficult for searchers to find all the information on these closely related topics when one or two pages and several redirects could solve the problem. (I say this as a librarian. This is partially a problem of needing controlled vocabulary.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelGHC (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate encyclopedic subject in its own right. It should probably, in final form, be a subpage of American nationalism. However, it is not a synonym for this, nor should it be a simple redirect to this. It is a concrete ideology with a vast published literature that should be seven miles over General Notability Guidelines, which call for multiple, independent, reliable, published sources. Somehow the emphasis here is on how crappy and unnecessary and duplicative this piece is. That's neither here nor there. The title is right, the subject is encyclopedic — as even a cursory search of published literature will indicate — and this should be closed a keep for now. I gay-ron-tee that this piece will not stay this way for very long, it has been one that I've been thinking about for quite some time but there are some big research needs that need to be fulfilled before it can be done right, as opposed to as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be turned into a legitimate article, that's fine. As it stands it's next to worthless. Maybe the Americentrism article, which is little more than a dictionary entry, can be merged into this one instead because I stand by the idea that there are too many articles on different facets of the same subject. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide useful and easily locatable information to interested searchers. Going beyond that it should also be easy to browse through relevant, related information. That's why consolidation of information (where applicable) and controlled vocabulary are so important. HazelGHC (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Carrite, I'm going with your argument; I would favor a merge of Americentrism into this one, and I'll add the usual suspect tags to see if someone wants to fix it. Otherwise, incubation may be in order. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The word has been used, but with many disparate meanings. I don't believe it is possible to write an article on the wordl, because essentially that's all it is (a word with many definitions,
  WP:DICDEF), and not an actual ideology. Neutrality^talk 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as the basis for an article. As usual, Carrite has the right approach: use an inadequate stub as a basis for building. The more complicated the meaning, the greater the potential for an article explaining the ramifications and the usages, To throw articles out as inadequate would have doomed Wikipedia from the beginning. There is no policy basis for deletion. What we remove are only those inadequate articles which are unexpandable because there is shown to be an absence of information for expanding them--and this is far from it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The fact that the term has been used to refer to different things does not justify an article. TFD (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic appears to have been addressed in several sources. I've added these two to the article:
  

• Kazin, Michael; McCartin, Joseph A. (2006.) "Americanism: new perspectives on the history of an ideal." The University of North Carolina Press.
  ISBN 978-0-8078-3010-9
• Yerkes, Andrew C. (2005.) "Twentieth-century Americanism: identity and ideology in Depression-era leftist fiction." Routledge.
  ISBN 9780415975384
  
  

Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This might be a small article,but a major edit to this article can make it better.Remember,it is always better to improve a article rather than deleting it for not being good enough.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the concept can be established to be distinct from American nationalism using reliable sources. If it cannot, redirect there. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep. Just provide some good references, and worry about expansion later. A stub is fine.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to
  portmanteau of American nationalism! Moreover this ideology is far from unique to America. You can substitute "America" with many other countries, so what's so special about this? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Athens F.C. Reserves

AEK Athens F.C. Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reserve teams in Greece don't play in the main league system, but rather in a special reserves league, which is not fully-professional. No sufficient media coverage to justify

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reserve teams can be notable, but there is no evidence why this one is. GiantSnowman 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last of Kin

Last of Kin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was a game that was never completed and didn't have a license so wasn't going to be mainstream. I'm not find RS references. RJFJR (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't exist and probably never will. Hardly notable. HazelGHC (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was closed as moot; article speedily deleted by User:Fastily. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rentcycle

Rentcycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Quite obviously the account was made purely to advertise an online website.

• Note. In case anyone's wondering why the page was created after this AfD, the article was speedy deleted as
  A7 now — frankie (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - The A7 has been contested. Because the article was recreated (quickly), I've added the AFD notice to the recreated article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - In response to the above comment, I recreated the page so quickly because I was getting used to the editing tools. My apologies for raising alarms unnecessarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SZinsmeister (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Comment" - my friend sent this wikipedia article to me and it seems to accurate. Gorlack, did you check your sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhalter (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Current text is
  petty trade awards, Startup of the Day listings, and inclusions in Top 100 style lists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as blatant spam.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyology

Eyology (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 neologism that has never really caught on.

• It only has about 8300 ghits total - and, while that's not an argument as such, it's very, very low when the only reason to have an article on it is that it was a notable neologism
• 6 mostly trivial mentions in google books, one of which is actually an OCR error for "phy- (new line) syology"
• No news hits
• Google Scholar checks find 6, but most appear to be similar OCR errors or typos. (Mainly for "cytology", at a guess.)
• It's not even used in the titles of books: a search of WorldCat finds no books; Amazon and Abebooks had similar 0 results.

There is no evidence this was ever a popular term, or even a minimally notable one. This would be a dubious inclusion on Wiktionary, let alone Wikipedia. The previous debate (archived below) was simply mistaken.

It should probably be noted here that this AfD is solely about the article on the neologism; not about the things it's meant to include, at least one of which, iridology, is a notable, if unscientific, diagnostic technique. They have their own articles, which contain far more information than this one. -The Friendly (but dynamically allocated) IP, 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there was a little copyvio (just one sentence), but I had to delete this source from the article while removing the copyvio: http://www.healinggardenjournal.com/articles/0405/mcgill.htm - I think this is the HGJ in the books search, which I suppose goes to show what the few valid results are like. I don't think the rest of the article's copyvio, and I don't think that's a reliable source anyway, but wanted to mention, just so that nothing's concealed. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Utterly non-notable failed neologism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no indication this is a notable term in independent reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Extremely limited use in reliable sources. Far too little to indicate that the neologism has gained any level of acceptance notable enough for inclusion in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and comments above. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gave this article the ol' college try a few years back, but this really does look like it would be better redirected to
  Eyeology has pointed for the past six years anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I actually kinda hate it when I look up some term I don't know, and get redirected to a page that doesn't mention the term, since I'm left no wiser than I was before about what I was looking up, and this term is so obscure that I'm not really convinced it's notable enough to mention in iridology. But others may disagree, and that's fair enough. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Runt Marr

Runt Marr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems non-notable based on

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I've found on The Sporting News, he's also been an owner of some of the teams he managed, like Springfield and Joplin. There's a sizable non-routine write-up on him on the July 9, 1942 issue. Crazy guy even traded
  WP:GNG as opposed to many of the other articles created by the user that made this one. As such, I default to Keep on this one. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - He seems to have a decent amount of coverage here and according to this book and this book he seems to have had a chance to sign Mickey Mantle as a Cardinals scout before the Yankees but according to this book he did land Bob Gibson and Ken Boyer for the Cardinals. In addition to the Vodello coverage Vodello found, he seems to merit a keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I think there's just enough coverage found by Vodello and Rlendog for this to scrape past GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4pm

4pm (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 business whose main claim to fame is winning third place in a competition by the Regional Chamber of Commerce for Northern Primorska isn't what I would call

• Delete.
  WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as above, non-notable software, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did additional searches on the parent company Arctur, with an eye towards maybe wrapping this into a larger article, but found no relevant hits on news, books, or scholar. If there are sources they aren't available at my local library, so someone else would have to dig them up.--~TPW 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (goddess)

Tara (goddess) (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 glorified version of Tara#Religions_and_deities. There is no proof that the Taras in different religions are same or related. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, weakly; more like it's a
  Tarahumara belonging anywhere here. And Terra must be destroyed! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Much of this article seems to come from here,[4] published by Springer, but seemingly referenced to out of print websites, strangely. I tend to agree with Smerdis (except for the last sentence, since I rather like Terra). Other reliable sources seem to confirm the Polynesian, Finnish, and Druid Taras. If there were articles on those, then this could be a simple dab page, Tara (disambiguation). First Light (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And of course I didn't click on Redtigerxyz's link to the dab page Tara#Religions_and_deities, which works for me. First Light (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to Tara. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvagnini

Salvagnini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Company with no significant notability. Does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. Unreferenced block of PR text; reads like a copyright violation, though I'm not finding other copies online. Initial notability results don't look all that promising, and Salvagnini is an ordinary personal name, so there will be irrelevant hits in any search engine results. This is an established, 48 year old business, making durable metalworking tools. I wish they added descriptions of what they do to the nice photos of machinery they donated to Commons. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. On a very quick search I found this article in
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as blatant
  WP:PROMOTION. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Whpq. That many sources are unreliable doesn't override the fact that the subject meets the GNG via a much smaller set of RS's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a formal recommendation, per my many comments above. SBHarris 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There appears to be several mentions of Walker in books. Perhaps reliable secondary sources can be found to further qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Yes, perhaps such sources can be found. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per my single comment above. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WorldCat shows his books were translated from English into 12 other languages [24]. We normally consider that notability for an author. This is somewhat borderline, but that's what decided me. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning that based on the WorldCat results he is notable. Dream Focus 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Walker passes
  Alive Magazine, "Norman Walker" from The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods, a book review of Pure and Simple, Natural Weight Control from the Vegetarian Times, and this from Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies. Goodvac (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is very organized, it is a true biography artical to me, just needs an improvenent of sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a reasonable attempt to provide a balanced biography of a controversial individual. The rescuers need to improve the sources. There appears to be a great deal of information available online about this man. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per more found sources thanks to user:Goodvac, some of which I added to the article:
  

• Richards, Doris E. (October 1992.) Visions of the Pioneers: Norman W. Walker: Juice Man Alive: Canada's Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, Issue 123, p10, 2p. ISSN 0228586X
• Russo, Ruthann "The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods."
• Bailey, Steven; Trivieri, Larry (2007.) "Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies." Square One Publishers.
  ISBN 0-7570-0266-8
  
  

Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to keep (outside of North8000) amount to: (1) it's no worse than

UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club

UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club (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 indications of notability. Was REFUNDed from a previous PROD but article unchanged since.

• Delete although if
  HighKing (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is no more or less notable than any of the others in its category, and it is referenced to the same extent as most of the others - better in some cases, so delete all or none, but not just this one. The only distinguishing feature of this article is that it contains the word British Isles, which is why the whole article has been suggested for deletion. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to closing admin This editor only revived this article because I had originally tagged it for deletion. The editor promised to add references on condition it was refunded, which the editor did not do. Please note that this editor has not been indef blocked for following my edits around (this article cited) and related behaviour - . --

HighKing (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Unless the text is BS, it's a 45 year old national club with 4,0000 members. Existence of sources suitable for wp:notabity is likely. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've no objections to keeping if sources can be found. You say sources are likely - yet I've looked and I can't find anything suitable, and the article has been tagged for months without any. Skywatcher above had the article REFUNDED after a PROD delete and promised to add refs. That was over a week ago and still nothing. --

HighKing (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete As the article stands it fails
  Mtking ^(edits) 07:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]