Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 November 25 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedroom Sessions (Bring Me the Horizon album)

[edit]
The Bedroom Sessions (Bring Me the Horizon album) (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 WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This is an unreleased demo without even insignificant sources. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 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. clear consensus of established editors, and I will salt as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkXpress

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

Advertising article about a non-notable business. The "references" supplied look impressive; what they show is that some would-be advertisers have become more adept at gaming the system, and that hardly any of them have this business as a major subject. Google News coverage shows one local paper interview with the CEO; other mentions are trivial, non-substantial, and in passing. The attempt to claim minimal importance is rather amusing, but this local award fails the business notability guideline:

  • earned the Fab 5 award in 2006, which was presented by the Harrisburg Regional Chamber and CREDC.[5] The Fab 5 was a competition to find the "Top 5" companies in the region who had been in business two to five years and were headquartered in Cumberland, Dauphin or Perry counties Pennsylvania.

This has already been deleted three times as making an insufficient claim of importance, or as obvious advertising[1]; taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a founder of WorkXpress, and I appreciate your goals and efforts in regard to keeping Wikipedia free of blatant advertising. Please allow me to make a couple of comments. First, it is true we have been deleted on several occasions, however, each time we have made an effort to understand the cause, and to rectify the cause with facts and evidence. The truth of the matter is that WorkXpress meets the requirements for listing on Wikipedia as we have grown in our understanding of them. For example, WorkXpress is notable; it is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing, and has been recognized by analyst firms like Gartner, Forrester and the 451 Group as such. Second, this notability is verifiable; there have been numerous secondary source articles on WorkXpress, multiple awards and wide range of other validations. Our vision is to make all aspects of business software deployment ranging from development to systems administration even to marketing accessible to the ordinary IT worker, and to empower them to do incredible things. Please, give us the opportunity to provide the supporting documentation that you need prior to deleting this article...we are happy to do so. In conclusion, I believe that what WorkXpress is doing belongs on Wikipedia, not as an advertisement, but as an important part of the emerging historical story of Cloud Computing. This history is still young, and I hope that you can consider the fact that its still being written; albeit with the help of smaller, innovative firms like WorkXpress. Firms like WorkXpress have a part in this story just as important as the Microsofts, Google's and Salesforces of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - thank you for your response. I am probably the wrong person to address the claim that your business "is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing" to. At any rate, I would expect that claim to be verified in sources; I looked, and I'm afraid I found very little there. The deletion template more or less automates the process of looking; you will find what I found.

    Investment analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the general public. Their clients are their "editors", and while I hope their facts are reliable, most of their work is circulated only to paying customers, which makes them of "limited interest and circulation", and as such unhelpful to establish notability. The same is true of local and trade publication coverage, which I mentioned I did find when I looked.

    Ultimately, what you need to show is that your firm has the kind of historical importance that makes it, out of all its rivals, a subject that belongs in a general coverage encyclopedia. I nominated your firm at the same time I did a number of similar articles about small tech firms, in part because I want to see the inclusion policies applied even-handedly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to its founder, Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", not a "general coverage encyclopedia". Regardless, there have been numerous articles meeting the requirements of a regional secondary source, numerous national/international reviews, etc, and they are listed. The guideline clearly states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability", and certainly WorkXpress has received plenty of evidenced regional media attention. Further, the guideline states that Notability in general "means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ", which again, is well evidenced. I think if you give an article like this the benefit of the doubt, in 6-12 months time the answer will present itself...either the company will grow, or it will fail. Is it such a difficult thing to include this article into "the sum of all human knowledge" during the formative years of an entirely new industry (cloud computing), especially given the fact that a reasonable argument can be made for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a quick note: a link to the public portion ("...generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the public", as per Smerdis of Tlon above) of the article by Gartner entitled "Whose who in Application Platforms for Cloud Computing" and other regional press has been added to the article. Just like many other news agencies, Gartner does collect money from its readers. However also like a news agency, its role is as a trusted advisor on new technologies and trends; if its advice is not accurate and factual, CIO's will not pay for future analysis - but yet they do. WorkXpress to date has never had a financial relationship with Gartner; Gartner analysts chose to include WorkXpress in this report on its merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was just contacted by a reporter from the Central Penn Business Journal about this debate following "a notice" from the company who claim to have been "fighting" with editors over the deletion. I explained how & why wikipedia works, referring them to deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia for more information. I sincerely hope the resulting article presents a balanced view of Wikipedia processes rather than a hatchet job. -- samj inout 00:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I was contacted by probably the same reporter. This would appear to be a rather unusual form of canvassing. They've also added material to the page, mostly aimed at arguing notability by linking to developer's blogs or local TV shows covering tech businesses in Pennsylvania. I am not yet convinced that these sources make this business a topic for the ages, but I do recognize effort. More of the article in its current state seems to be arguing that media mentions make it notable, than that something it made or did was remakable enough to be noticed and that made it notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I reached out to this reporter asking him to post on this board regarding their coverage of our firm as a verifiable and notable source. After we conversed, he and his editor expressed surprise at this entire experience we were having with Wikipedia...they had no idea Wikipedia was so tightly controlled by such a loose group of individuals. They contacted another regional authority who confirmed that in his experience, small businesses have a very difficult time with Wikipedia. They made the decision on their own to initiate a story (I have zero control over that) simply because the story is interesting. Will it be a "hatchet job"? I seriously doubt it will, but if our experience is any guide, I suspect it will be accurate and quite interesting to most readers.

Despite an admirable set of rules and guidelines, there remains a significant amount of opinion and gray area in Wikipedia, and human interpretation of those gray areas has a significant impact on real people. For example, what relevance does the existence of this reporter and this potential story have to do with the notability discussion of WorkXpress? As another example, the Cloud Computing article which is extremely important right now in shaping an emerging industry leads with an image that is inaccurate, unhelpful and arguably biased towards a limited set of vendors. When we as 7 year experts on the subject commented as such to the author, the reply we received was that this "was just our opinion". However, is not the image just that authors opinion? That content is vital, and important and affects real people, but the truth is that real people (even industry experts) have little obvious power to influence it.

Humorously (or not), the original attempts at describing WorkXpress notability focused on it as being (at least according to our claim) "the worlds only 5GL Platform as a Service", and the support therein. If true, that is a very important piece of notability. However, based on the many criticisms from editors, it's also true, the nature of the article has changed to focus more on the publicity that has been received. The more important claims about WorkXpress have intentionally been edited out, so as not to "offend".

Still, we feel Wikipedia is an important chronicle of this newly emerging Cloud Computing and Platform as a Service space, and we feel we are a part of that story. It is my hope that we can be given the benefit of any doubt that still exists and be given another six months to continue developing the article, the sources etc. I would prefer to add significant content around the true notability of WorkXpress, however, we remain afraid of alienating editors. Do we now have permission to add that content back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a "chronicle" of anything that is "newly emerging". Yes, our guidelines do favor that which is older, established, and that has received coverage out of state. Basically, what we need is something from a neutral source of relatively broad and general circulation (i.e. not IT related, and circulated outside of your area of Pennsylvania), announcing that being "the worlds only 5GL Platform as a Service" makes your business a subject that belongs in the history books. I looked, and looked again today; the news, scholar, and book results I saw did not make that case. You're welcome to continue to try, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some questions: As we understand it, you require "not IT". Are IT Sources only "of limited interest"?
  • Also, you are saying "not from Pennsylvania"? Why does the state of Pennsylvania not qualify as a Region according to Wikipedia? Why does the well established and documented region of Central Pennsylvania not qualify as a "region"? Here where I live, there is a clear distinction between local, regional, national and international media, awards, etc., and those organizations document that reach in their names; this is widely accepted I believe in most other regions of at least this country and I'd guess many others. Further, in looking at the actual definitions of the words local and regional, and without redefining them, the WorkXpress news sources clearly are not local, and clearly qualify as regional. Are coverages by "at least Regional" media not notable according to Wikipedia?
  • I also have questions about why the subject of the article must be, in order for us to be notable, along the lines of "Why the worlds only 5GL platform as a service is historically important"? I thought the definition of notability according to Wikipedia was the much more forgiving standard of "worthy of being noted", which WorkXpress certainly qualifies for.
  • My last question, why do you rely on your Google News search when clearly just from the references on the WorkXpress page it shows that Google News search is not adequate? Is a reference only notable if it appears on a Google News search? We've provided many articles that don't appear on Google News search that you are choosing to ignore. And of course, the public Gartner mention, although small (it's not a trivial mention, just a short excerpt identifying the full articles subjects), is also important and relevant to anyone who would be searching cloud computing, platform as a service, etc...and it certainly meets the definition of national/international. It clearly identifies "Who is who", and Workxpress is clearly on the list...which of course speaks of notability.
  • You can obviously hear the tone of frustration, and for that I apologize. Previous flags on the WorkXpress article by Nawlinwiki and Samj clearly explained the Wikipedia guidelines that weren't being met, and we were easily able to point to sources that met them. It may be that if you extend your search beyond the Google News search, you will find what you are looking for. However absent that, we are simply confused as to exactly what we could point to that would satisfy you, and that was reasonable given the guidelines we read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the claim above:

As another example, the Cloud Computing article which is extremely important right now in shaping an emerging industry leads with an image that is inaccurate, unhelpful and arguably biased towards a limited set of vendors. When we as 7 year experts on the subject commented as such to the author, the reply we received was that this "was just our opinion". However, is not the image just that authors opinion?

The image is intended to serve as an example of verifiably notable providers such that users can, based on existing experience with those providers, infer what cloud computing is. It is not meant to advertise relatively unknown providers, as was the case when it was [ab]used by WorkXpress (who in the process downgraded it from a vector to a bitmap and created another file that had to be cleaned up). While there may well be any number of "better" images out there, none of them meet Wikipedia's licensing requirements so one was created from scratch. Are you really going to claim that WorkXpress is a better example than Google, Yahoo, Salesforce, Zoho, Rackspace, Amazon, Microsoft, or any number of other well-known cloud providers? Or that "my opinion" is somehow biased or unfair (e.g. that there are more notable examples)? Do you really expect that we try to include all of them? Given I'm quite sure I've explained this to you repeatedly I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. Running to the media with the "story" doesn't help your case either. -- samj inout 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAs I mentioned clearly above, we did not run to the media with a story, we contacted them seeking their assistance in communicating to you why their regional, non-IT affiliated newspaper met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. They sensed a story, and pursued it on their own, and any insinuation to the contrary is flat out false. The story exists because of the perceived surprise of this Afd proceeding, NOT because of something we did.
  • The image you are defending does little to explain cloud computing, as I've tried repeatedly to discuss with you. Communication is a two way street but your "explaining this to me repeatedly" demonstrates clearly your unwillingness to dialogue or to improve your content. Here are some specific criticisms of the image: Exactly which Microsoft Cloud offering have you been referring to, the just-now-released Azure? (how does any other previous product from "Microsoft" allow a visitor to infer what "cloud computing" is, as per your rationale?) Why did you put Rackspace in there but not GoGrid (I can tell you first hand GoGrid has had a more evolved "cloud" offering)? Why is Zoho in there at all (there are a number of vendors of their size and stature who are more then just SaaS, which is all that Zoho is)? Which offerings of Google or Yahoo are you referencing as providing the "cloud" experience (Google does a LOT of things more prominent then their cloud offerings, which could mislead visitors)? What does the image even mean (not much)?? To lead a page visited by many people looking to learn about Cloud Computing with this image is exactly why the media are so skeptical of Wikipedia to begin with; its not in any way encyclopedic. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear dissent, but I have a lot of experience in this space; your image, and your rationale are flawed. I will take this discussion to the cloud computing page.
Back to this Afd discussion: the bottom line is that WorkXpress has "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources". It has clearly been "worthy of attracting notice". We have demonstrated evidence of attention by "at least regional media". These are the guidelines, and WorkXpress meets them. I apologize to everyone for the tone of this discussion, and thank you all for your legitimate, unbiased consideration and conclusion, whatever form that may take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this is not the forum to discuss which providers are and are not included in one of a number of images in another article, it is telling of your attitude towards Wikipedia, its policies and other editors. The NYT were writing about Microsoft's cloud strategy over 2 years ago, Rackspace have ten times more "cloud+computing" news articles than GoGrid (and are quite probably at least 10x their size), Zoho is (or at least was) generating a lot of press as an alternative to Google (who are the quintessential cloud provider) and Yahoo! have been "cloud+computing"&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a generating news the whole time too. FWIW the image shows the origin of the cloud in network diagrams and illustrates the separation of servers (which appear as a loosely aggregated point source) and clients at the periphery. I think it does a pretty good job and I note the absence of a better alternative from you. -- samj inout 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt: In terms of the AfD, a quick google news search returns 3 syndicated posts and a name drop in an article about moving, all of them from the same regional journal. In consideration of the questionable reliability of your main source, the fact that the article logs show a long history of speedy deletions, the spamming of other cloud computing article(s) and image(s) with this one, various quality, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other policy issues, and constant interference with process (e.g. the essays above) I think this article should be deleted and salted until such time as you can demonstrate verifiable notability by way of non-trivial references in multiple reliable sources. -- samj inout 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted this before seeing that there having already been two relistings - I looked past the first. If any admin wants to close this now, please do so. Fences&Windows 23:58, 24 November 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. The massive weight of deleted versions on countless variant titles says that we do not want this topic. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this back to AfD to be deleted for the thousandth time. Only known coverage by reliable third-party sources has been by a single newspaper article,[2] which isn't enough to pass WP:N or WP:WEB. The article has been recreated several times under various names. —Farix (t | c) 23:34, 24 November 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, G5. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Superhero

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

Hoax article. Unfortunately not quite clear-cut enough for a speedy. There is a film called Death of a Superhero, that seems to be in production [4] starring Freddie Highmore based on a work by Anthony McCarten; that work may well ( and indeed probably will be) be notable in the future. However the assertions in this article, apart from the star, are complete fantasy. Really, if this was a genuine Tim Burton movie in production, there would be sources. There is nothing to indicate that any of the stellar cast have anything to do with this work. No sources offered; fewer found. (It is in part a copy of the Astro Boy article, down to the IMDb link at the bottom FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I can't say I'm positive that this article is a hoax but I can say that it certainly does fail WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I have no prejudice towards recration of this article should we establish at a later date that the film is real and that commencement of principal photography can be verified through reliable sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) See below, changed to speedy delete per new evidence of creating editor being a sock of a banned user. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I appreciate that some of the article has an element of truth. My own opinion is that an article on the actual Death of a Superhero movie would pass notability criteria when production gets underway and in a sense, I started the AFD so there would be something to refer to, if and when a bone fide article on that film is created. (I'm sure there will be one eventually) By the by, the book on which that production is based could well pass WP:N itself at this title, from what I can see. However, the hoax tag refers to the contents of the current article, which is a fantasy article; there are one or two elements of truth in the cast list, but the synopsis of the film is a complete fabrication. (A synopsis of the book can be easily found online.) What I couldn't say in the original AFD rationale as I hadn't done the paperwork elsewhere on Wikipedia, was that the article creator was almost certainly a sock of the user Alexcas11 (talk · contribs), who has a long history of creating either completely fictitious film articles, or as in this case, film articles that have some basis in truth, but are essentially hoaxes. Again, I stress that there shouldn't be any prejudice against recreation of this article in the future, either for the film or the book; however this article should go as deliberate misinformation. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFF. If it IS or becomes a Tim Burton project, it will get coverage... lots of coverage. If it is not, or is a hoax, it will never have the reliable sources allowing a return. Currently I can find no coverage.... which speaks volumes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, creation by a banned user, see evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcas11. Tagged as a speedy request. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 November 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) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pie and Bovril

[edit]
Pie and Bovril (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 declined the speedy on this because I feel the claim of controversy = a claim of importance. However, I'm not finding notability for this forum. I found a couple of blog entries, a couple of podcasts, and that's about it. The BBC piece mentioned in the article won't load for me, so I have no idea how much it contributes towards notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you will struggle to find articles based on it is mostly down to the fact that search engines prioritise the results based on activity. Since it is a forum (and an extremely popular one at that) most of the entries that appear do so from the site itself (since ultimately they are the most relevant).

The referenced link is to the Radio Show where Pie and Bovril Founder (David McDonald) was invited onto "Off the Ball" - broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland every Saturday before the day's fixtures take place. During this show, the phenomenon of football and the internet was discussed at length, and Pie and Bovril was used as the example of the most prominent site of this nature applying to Scottish Football.

The BBC also makes frequent reference to Pie and Bovril when searching for fans' opinions in their web search 3 minute piece in Sportscene Results, which is broadcast Scotlandwide as the alternative to "Final Score" for English leagues. Jonathan Sutherland, their Web Correspondent, mentions the site and its posters almost every week.

I understand that the article in its present form is relatively bare and thus it might be considered as insufficiently relevant. However, I believe that if you allow it to stay as it is now, it will make it much easier to flesh out the article with some research over the coming month or so by a number of contributors. I know of at least 2 other Pie and Bovril contributors who also extensively edit Wikipedia pages on the topic of Scottish Football, and would be well placed to ensure it maintains Encyclopaedic form.

I hope this persuades you. Redandyellowarmy (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pie and Bovril is regularly referenced in the mainstream Scottish media - but you'll struggle to find those references in Google because most Scottish newspaper content is not archived on websites. If you have access to something like Datastarweb or Lexis Nexus to do a newspaper cuttings search you'll find a vast array of content. Jamie Beatson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.213.210 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A website being referenced in a newspaper or some other medium does not make it notable, when said references are in the context of "what people are saying online" Marks87 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard Pie and Bovril mentioned plenty of times on the mainstream media in Scotland, including radio phone ins and of course Off the Ball. Given time I would expect this article to be brought up to the standard of an article such as Slashdot. JieBie (talk) 10:29, 25 November 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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Huet

[edit]
Edmond Huet (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 notable; no sources for verification identified Scoop100 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 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. No secondary sources to indicate notability. If editors can write about fraternities in Ottawa more generally using reliable sources, please do so. Fences&Windows 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Theta Alpha

[edit]
Omega Theta Alpha (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 non-notable fraternity at the University of Ottawa. While I would imagine that national chapters are inherently notable, I don't believe that individual fraternities are, and I'm don't see any evidence that this one passes WP:ORG. While they do support a charity or few and do volunteer work, that's not enough to meet the notability standard (especially given that every fraternity tends to do charity work). Even if there were notable alumni (which the article doesn't claim that there are), notability isn't inherited. Bfigura (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears that contributor might fall into WP:SPA LoudHowie (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Although the alumni base is non-existant, you have to realize that this group was formed only 8 years ago, a rather young organization that is still growing and looking for exposure which is coming slowly in many forms of online and written mediums. Calder27 (talk) 3:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no notability or significant coverage. Just because this is fairly young organization that is beginnig to receive coverage does not mean it has to be included in Wikipedia. Give it a few years and if it does become notable, I will reconsider my decision. In the mean time, I vote delete. LoudHowie (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a bit more third party referencing appears. Also, this article reads like an advertising brochure for the organisation. I quote from above: "you have to realize that this group was formed only 8 years ago, a rather young organization that is still growing and looking for exposure which is coming slowly in many forms of online and written mediums." We do realise, and that's why the article has been nominated. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a place for gaining exposure. When there is sound evidence of notability, come back. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete For some reason this organisation is being singled out. there are several other local fraternities and sororities whose pages have been up for several years and offered less references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are. Please feel free to tag them in the same way as this. There is a policy that says that just because another article exists, this is no reason for this one. Wikipedia has to have rules, or the place would be full of junk ("Shaun is awesommmmmeeeeee!"). The way the lines are drawn means that independent reliable references (to notability, not just existence) are required. Some of those other articles might have got in before the rules were tightened. They might just have been missed. They might actually comply. If you disagree, tag them and we'll look. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't worry about other insignificant fraternities having a page on Wikipedia, someone will get to those eventually and they'll be tagged the same way. LoudHowie (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to new posters Please realise that you saying this organisation is notable means nothing here. Nor does volume of posts. Single Purpose Accounts (accounts that are new and have not done any other work) are valued less than regular editors. The arguments put forward are assessed. A decision is made. If it goes for delete, you can always come back WHEN you have the necessary references to support the notability of the subject. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution maybe a single local organisation is not notable enough to meet wikipedia but an article that contain an overview about sororities and fraternities in the Ottawa region —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - but remember reliable third party sources..... Peridon (talk) 22:40, 27 November 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 (non-admin closure) Quantpole (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Zadok & Co.

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Haim Zadok & Co. (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:ORG and WP:GNG. References provided show notability for attached individuals and a mention in a couple of articles on cases - that is, however, moot. Notability is not inherited (and so the founder's importance is irrelevant) and a couple of brief press quotes from cases they were involved in does not count as "substantial" coverage. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Clearly notable. The scope of its activities is international in scale, and information about the firm and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Coverage is international in scope.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "significant" coverage by third-party, independent, reliable sources? No. You've pulled up what, six sources, all of which use little quotes from the firm and its involved people. That is not significant. Ironholds (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article now hhas more than six third party independent RSs. The Sharon litigation, which the firm handled, is the most famous libel litigation of the last few decades that I can think of. The clients mentioned in other matters are all the uber-rich or include some of Israel's biggest companies. The references to the founder's notability as a distinguished lawyer counts of course -- the same way a band that has Paul McCartney play for it becomes notable because its constituent member is notable. I see from the below comment that you note the improvement in the article. If someone can add the article that no doubt exist in Hebrew, we will have more, but I do not know if we will get them. Do we have enough now for you to consider withdrawing the nom?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, although I can never work out how to withdraw - feel free to consider this a request to handle it. And actually, no; notability is not inherited. And under our music guidelines, a band with Paul McCartney in would not necessarily be notable :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - per nom. \//\ - 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very notable, many reliable sources, described as a leading firm on Dun's 100, hired for some of the biggest cases in Israel. Don't understand where Ironholds is coming from and what his/her objection could possibly be (could there be some personal grudge at work here?)--Gilabrand (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've uncovered my COI - I, a law student, have a strong hatred of law firms. I also can't stand people who accuse users of grudges without any firm evidence simply because they disagree with them. It is worth noting that the statement above was written when the article was in a very different stage from where it is now. I would appreciate either a) a withdrawal of your baseless and laughable query or b) some kind of evidence beyond "I don't like what he's written". Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Ironholds' comment above, and am happy to view consensus here as keep, and have no objection to the closing of this. To explain my vote a smidgen more, my reading of the GNG is that coverage has to be principally about the subject matter, or at least contain significant information about it. In this case most of the references seemed to be either about a particular lawsuit or Haim Zadok himself, and not about the firm. However, I can see this is a debatable position. Quantpole (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple references, and a good cite for the firm's importance. I cannot close as nomination withdrawn, in view of the above good faith "delete", which argues a basis in policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This law firm, if you read the citations, has a significant relationship with certain members of the Israeli government, and has been a part of cases with regional and international significance.Ollie Garkey (talk) 19:44, 25 November 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. No valid argument for deletion provided by nominator, and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Plaza

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

Recreation of a speedy deleted article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe if you can find some third party sources then you might save this article from being deleted again. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is a third party source. But your nomination didn't indicate any sourcing concern with the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, though, if you want sources, there appear to be a nearly 5,000 of them, many entirely about the development. From what I can tell, this was a rather notable government financing scandal of the 1960s (it was the largest of its type, and it was investigated by the senate). As this happened 40+ years ago, sources are not quickly accessible. Indeed, I cannot access the LA Times, which wrote extensively about this story... otherwise I'd greatly expand the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I will buy some of the articles and add in the shady parts, warts and all.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, don't feel like you have to do that. People can see the articles exist... in theory that's enough to survive AFD. I used to have Lexis Nexis access that included the LA Times archives for free... hopefully someone like that will come along eventually. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources indicate a sufficient level of notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A little bit on the history of this article that isn't readily apparent: I nominated this article at AfD yesterday on the grounds of notability (see first AfD link above). It was deleted not because of notability, but because HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs)—the article author and at that time its only contributor of content—blanked the page and made what I interpreted to be an explicit request for deletion on my talk page, thereby qualifying it for G7 speedy deletion. I tagged it as such and it was deleted. Personally, I would have preferred that AfD run its course, but I saw no point in keeping an article if its author and only contributor of content requested deletion. About the same time, Sancho Mandoval (talk · contribs) chimed in that he had found some sources to indicate the subject's notability, and requested the deleting admin to restore the article, which he did. No opinion on deletion this time around, but I ask the nominator to clarify the rationale for deletion, as the one cited is not valid. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the AFD nominator has been indefinitely blocked. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:41, 26 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 42 Notice

[edit]
Section 42 Notice (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 legalese PDCook (talk) 22:22, 24 November 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.

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

[edit]

The result was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Ebrahim Desai (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 mufti - article is currently an unsourced coatrack to get some random fatwa's and someone else's opinion about rape in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note: The article was discovered to contain copyright issues, so major parts of the biography/article was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 and 2 minutes at 21:22, 24 November 2009 later somebody is insisting it is a coatrack. The article is a stub, but not a coatrack. But obviously it will take time to rebuild the article using other references. The opinon on rape is cited from the fatwa of the mufti and not "someone else's" so any such claims are false. Fragma08 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his fatwa regarding rape seems to have gotten a fair bit of media coverage. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to media coverage. The article needs to be built up again, with better sources and no plagiarism. CarolineWH (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and clean-up. Also agree that someone's own words or fatwa can certainly be cited on a BLP, thus the issue becomes writing it NPOV. The rape content should be reworked to note who thinks his rape opinions are notable and why. Keep it dispassionate as Wikipedia follows sources, not the other way around. We should avoid even the appearance of judgment. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Per all of the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about Keep but clean up. I'm not that convinced about the level of coverage, but it probably scrapes thorugh. However, at the moment the article does seem to be a coatrack about a specific issue he has commented on (the news coverage in the article is regarding a different muslim cleric). We can discuss his comments regarding rape, but only if this is done in reliable sources. Looking through the news results I could not actually see any coverage of this issue, so it simply shouldn't be there. Quantpole (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the article is not a coat rack Do look at the discussions to see that it was a lengthy biography yesterday but due to copyright issues, major parts of the biography was removed leaving only a stub. So now to call it coatrack is simply invalid and defies all logic. Allow time for the article to be built up. The source does not get any more reliable than the fatwa itself from the mufti himself. To expect other muftis to back up this mufti is like expecting consensus across religion when in fact there are many sectarian difference and so any consensus would be hard to achieve which is why talk of secondary or back up references is irrelevant.Fragma08 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not whether the info is verifiable. It is that if it has not been covered by other sources it is not notable. The only reason I have voted keep here is that there does appear to be some coverage. However, none of this coverage is regarding his comments regarding rape. I have therefore removed this section from the article. If reliable sources are found that show this is noteworthy, then we can include it. Quantpole (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well this is the case of religious fatwas (edicts if you like)and not like other publicised work and so to ask for other sources to cover one mufti's fatwa would be unrealistic. Religion is split into sects and subsects so asking for others for verification or consensus, can not be done. Which is why it can stand alone as notable. You will find similar pattern under other scholars' articles therefore the information needs to stay but the biography and work need to be built on. But I will work on finding more sources. Fragma08 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not relevent what the information is. It needs independent coverage (which does not have to be other scholars backing him up). I could issue a fatwa today but that wouldn't be notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the same could be said of the mufti himself then and in fact all muftis unless their names frequently circulate the media or they are used as spokepeople for various issues. In which case majority of the articles on wiki could be claimed to be not notable and deleted. The fatwa and the fatwa website is used by various people and not just the deobandi community, mind you. It is impossible to cover varous fatwas especially when they don't play a role in your life.Fragma08 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on Google news link up top, and do some reading. Clearly notable. And the article does mention references... I see the rape part is currently out of it, despite having references, this what the guy was getting news coverage for, and thus it should be in the article. Dream Focus 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please can you point to the coverage he has received regarding those particular opinions, because I could not see it. I am quite willing to admit I am wrong, and if it has been covered then it is right to be in the article. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 26 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Curtis Skanson

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

Borderline spam/promotion only. Want a 2nd opinion please ! thisisace (talk) 21:04, 24 November 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. Copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/claudesirois Fences&Windows 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Sirois

[edit]
Claude Sirois (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 to be a CopyPaste of a machine translation of the About section of http://www.myspace.com/claudesirois thisisace (talk) 20:55, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qbiss by trimo

[edit]
Qbiss by trimo (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 Prod, however, there are some sources which write in detail so this is worth a wider discussion. Neutral listing. SilkTork *YES! 20:52, 24 November 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 per A7 by Anthony.bradbury. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haider with tahseen

[edit]
Haider with tahseen (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 alleged reference is a non reference, and Google can't find this topic, or I can't! I'm unable to decide if this is a hoax, an essay, or a test page. But whatever it is I can;t see that it belongs here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:43, 24 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof

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

Declined for both G4 (recreation of deleted material) and G11 (spam). This article has been deleted three times already. Continued recreation is borderline abuse. DarkAudit (talk) 20:19, 24 November 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 withdrawn. Non-Admin Closure. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Burl

[edit]
Aubrey Burl (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 notability shown. no coverage in independent sources needed to satisfy wp:bio Oo7565 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i withdrew this Afd sorryOo7565 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there are a few dozen such reviews in the GNews results, including the one I added. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is odd then that the article continues to contain no information about the reception of Burl's work, only a short and florid NYT compliment about Burl himself.
I just added a dozen reviews in academic journals (three of them Nature) of half a dozen of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citing refs to reviews for the bare existence of books in the bibliography does little to improve the article. Do none of these reviews actually say something useful? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They go on for between a paragraph and two pages about the books. Here for instance are some selected quotes from Ritchie's Nature review of From Carnac to Callanish, which fills a whole page: "Burl's The Stone Circles of the British Isles has rightly become a classic of archaeological presentation, outlining different types of monuments and making an assessment of their dating evidence and social context. In the intervening years he has continued the study and has not avoided the discussion of such controversial issues as complex geometric shapes and the potential significance of astronomical alignments in the positioning of sites within their landscape. The present volume takes a more disparate group of monuments, linear settings of upright stones, stones in rows and avenues, and creates order where none had existed before." That's only a little over 10% of the review, but I can't copy and paste from it and it's tedious to retype so you'll have to follow the link to read more. And in any case, it is a gross abuse of AfD process to use it to push obviously-notable but stubby articles to be improved. On top of which, by first requesting reviews and then rejecting them as not good enough because their contents are not detailed within the article, you appear to be moving the goalposts. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the use you made of the reviews that you yourself made an issue of is hardly "moving the goalposts". And an expectation that sources be added to 'improve' the article, rather than as {{refspam}} for already verifiable points is hardly unreasonable. My 'Delete' opinion was made before the bulk of these reviews were added. I will probably be changing this opinion based upon new information -- but how quickly, how grudgingly, and whether to 'keep' or 'weak keep' will depend on whether the new sources are reflected in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're pointing to vaguely related guidelines, let's try WP:AGF. I didn't add those references to the article to verify that the books exist — the ISBNs already given should be plenty to that — but to provide pointers for readers and future editors to read more about the books than we do or should write within the article. As for your refspam tag, I find it inappropriate and badly written: spam should only be used to refer to promotion of material that is not sufficiently relevant to include in an article for non-promotional reasons, and that's not the case with these reviews, which are all signed, published in reliable sources, and nontrivial. As for whether the footnotes go to a section entitled "References" or something else, I care little, but I've renamed it to be "Notes" to reflect the fact that as you say some of the things in it are not actually references for the content of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 25 November 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. Nancy talk 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectInsight

[edit]
ProjectInsight (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. References given are to small trade publications that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. All seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.

Obvious advertising; Article was created by an WP:SPA account, and maintained by multiple sock accounts with no other edits other than related to ProjectInsight.Speedily deleted once before and re-created. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is a press release and is included to establish existence as a completed Project Management Software product since 2002. The references above meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP.
Project Insight is a mature, notable, Project Management Software product, and the article adds value to the related articles Project Management Software and List of Project Management Software.
If you check the history, I have recently worked to improve the neutrality of article. I would appeciate specific feedback on any sentence or paragraph in the article that does not meet the neutrality guidelines so that I can correct them. I also welcome any other feedback or input to so that I can improve the article as well. Please add any recommendations on the Project Insight talk page or my talk page. Thanks!--SurfAndSwim (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — SurfAndSwim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment:I am an user of this software and I do not understand why it has been tagged as an excesive-commercially article. I add some reasons why I think this article cannot be fairly tagged for deletion:
  • The content includes a brief history of the product, and a list of functionalities, besides a very interesting list of Project Management articles and Press references for respected magazines such as Business Wire, AJAX magazine or CNNMoney. Furthermore, it includes world references like Red Herring listing. The vast majority of this articles have no relationship with the product manufacturer.
  • If you visit any of the other Project Management softwares included in this listing: List_of_project_management_software you will find more commercially articles, including logo and comercially biased descriptions.
  • Please, remove this tag.
  • Alex Ballarin at www.cynertiaconsulting.com Barcelona, Spain — Alex of Bcn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep Seeing this deletion rationale I expected a glossy sales brochure. Actually seing the 3-lines article is quite disappointing - and I would say that only a desperate and hallucinating salesman would see this as useful advert (=spam). Checked a few of the 15 references, and they sure seem to be a pass for WP:GNG. Smerdis is off track on this issue, with his home grown and extremely restrictive criteria, not recognizing the notability of niche products. I completely disagree on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to insist that, before they rise to the level of being encyclopedia subjects, commercial software must become actually motable --- i.e. receive some notice outside the business or technical communities it circulates in. If only those communities have heard of it, it needs to be recognized as a major player, technically innovative, or historically significant. This is what the notability essay on software --- by no means my sole effort --- says, Yes, I do think that we need to get away from the situation where every such package thinks it rates an encyclopedia page because its competitors have one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Keep Being mentioned in anything circulated to that many people, makes it notable. They wouldn't bother mentioning anything that wasn't considered worth talking about. Dream Focus 02:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've lost me here: are you saying that anything mentioned (at all, and however briefly) in a large-scale publication or web site is therefore by definition notable? Every high school football player who is simply mentioned in their local paper as having played in a game is notable, so long as their local paper is the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times? Every product—with only the tiniest blurb, or with only a single mention—on large web site is notable? That's an interesting concept, to be sure. Got a link to a policy or guideline where that can be found? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:04, 26 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)

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

Autobiog - author has blanked their user page to hide the fact after COI was placed on page. Alastair Rae (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is "autobiog" a criterion for deletion? Which number? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 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 {{db-author}} per request here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21/12; Doomsday (film)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
21/12; Doomsday (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)

An amateur film not yet made by an amateur director, to be distributed by a company that doesn't exist, can hardly be considered notable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to wait until this film becomes more popular to post a page of it on wikipedia, so you may delete it when you want.
I am afraid your own free website does not qualify as a reliable source. noq (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the (unsigned) comment above constitute a {{db-author}} request? I haven't checked the actual author of the request, so I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was added by the article author. noq (talk) 20:02, 24 November 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. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Note that the coverage is all derived from a single AP article from 2006, so the argument of WP:BLP1E is also valid. Fences&Windows 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Wilson

[edit]
Galen Wilson (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 was a Prod - however, there seems to be enough material on the person for there to be some discussion as to notability. This is a neutral listing. SilkTork *YES! 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know who Batepuneta is, but I created the article while doing articles on all the notable WWI, WII (including Continuation War) and Vietnam-era snipers. I just looked around for who the notable snipers in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to be. Is it good, bad? I'm not sure enough to weigh in myself on the nomination right now. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:08, 25 November 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. This is all trivia: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It wasn't mentioned in the debate, but WP:OR also largely applies. Fences&Windows 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags on Pardon the Interruption

[edit]
Running gags on Pardon the Interruption (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 discourages trivia section, this whole article is a trivia section. None of it seems to be of any encyclopedic value. Pretty much all of it is OR. The source are youtube vidoes, TV.com pages and transcripts.

This article is a unencyclopaedic collection of assorted facts. This violation of WP:TRIVIA. Anything use could be merged into the main article. Coasttocoast (talk) 18:30, 24 November 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 per G7 by Steve Smith. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Plaza

[edit]
Barrington Plaza (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 apartment complex. Google search yields a bunch of hits corroborating this place's existence, but all those hits are to apartment review sites or building/architecture sites. A secondary concern is that there are claims that this was the largest HUD renewal project in the western U.S., but none of the Ghits corroborate this. It also claims the complex was developed by one Louis Lesser in conjunction with U.S. President John F. Kennedy. While I don't doubt that it was developed by Mr. Lesser or his company (which was somewhat shown to me by the author in a separate discussion; more on that later), Kennedy was assassinated two years before HUD was established, so how could the two have worked together on a HUD project? Delete all the content of questionable verifiability, and we're left with "Barrington Plaza is an apartment complex in Los Angeles developed by Lesser Enterprises." I highly doubt that that would satisfy WP:N.

Full disclosure: I started a related AfD on Mr. Lesser's article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser, and have contributed to a ANI discussion on the author's conduct. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted - I deleted the article because User:Kuyabribri is correct. I made HUGE errors on this article, for example, saying "HUD", when I should have said "F.H.A.". Barrington Plaza was "one of the largest F.H.A. insured projects ever constructed", as verified in the sources in the Louis Lesser article, by Artrhur Anderson & Co., on September 13, 1963, a copy of the audit being cited in the sources.
When I have reliable and verifiable sources for Barrington Plaza, I will notify User:Kuyabribri in advance, so he/she can check I am not making egregious errors again, then recreate the article if User:Kuyabribri is in acreement. I fixed the errors in the Louis Lesser article, doing what several other experienced editors asked me to do, by deleting the whole article, and building it up sentence by sentence with reliable sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Bruce Lee lived there, and the Journal of Housing does confirm this was the largest single FHA investment of some sort. Honestly this AFD should probably run for the 7 days... you'd get help from me and maybe other people, as opposed to just working along. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a lawsuit involving a black man who tried to rent an apartment at this place apparently set some notable precedent. I'm not sure if all of these tidbits add up to notability, but when a lot of interesting things pop out in 5 minutes of searching... it makes me feel like this deserves an AFD. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been deleted. Under ordinary circumstances I would close the discussion in accordance with WP:NAC but I would like to avoid the potential for backlash since I was the nominator. If you believe AfD should run its course, please take this up at WP:DRV or send a message to the deleting admin on his/her talk page. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the admin to undelete the article so the AFD can run and I can work on the article. presumably if I'd had time to unblank the article it wouldn't have met a CSD anyway, so I don't think DRV should be needed here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:49, 24 November 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. We have no clear numerical consensus for deletion, so I must look to strength of argument. To begin with, I must substantially discount the "rename or [else] delete" type of opinions, for two reasons: AfD is not a venue for discussing the title of an article (backed up by the threat of deletion), that's what the talk page is for; and few specific alternative names seem to be proposed. Beyond that, the principal objection to the article seems to be that "socialism" has many meanings, and that the current list is not based on any one (or what the editors believe is the correct one) of these meanings. But that is not a problem of WP:OR mandating deletion; it is a challenge for editors to make a well-structured list that makes clear under which meaning of the term a country is included, and to back this up with references to reliable sources that identify the country as "socialist". It is not clear from the discussion or indeed the current list why that should be impossible, and I see no other arguments that, under applicable policies, would mandate deletion. So we're back at no consensus, and I encourage interested editors to continue the discussion about a possible renaming or restructuring on the article talk page.  Sandstein  06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist countries

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of socialist countries (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 AfD of Feb 2008 was not well attended (and the one I've just found out happened on Dec 2008 even less), and like many AfD's, had too many passing voters who didn't fully see why the article can't work. There was the usual headcount and the article remained. In time these lists get viewed by people (like myself), so it is time to propose deleting it again, this time giving more reasons:

1) In the 20C American came to use the word 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism'. There are socio-political reasons for this that are particular to America - Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and should not use such a narrow definition. Article titles should always follow Wikipedia's own definition of the word, which is broad, and follows dictionaries, and the majority of the world. This narrow definition of 'socialism' is often seen as a move to promote right-wing politics, and Wikipedia should be fully neutral.

2) List of countries by system of government contains sections that that cover one party states etc for people who particularly want to see those things covered – this article could be seen as a WP:FORK 'content fork' of that.

3) If (or 'when', if the AfD fails) the definition is made to be properly broad, then many would say the United Kingdom should be in one of the sub lists - and France etc too - where does it end when this is done properly? Narrowing definitions to what is 'manageable' always ends up being exclusionist and ultimately biased. A manageable (or ultimately useful) list could not be made, and there would be unavoidable bias involved in ordering the sub lists.

4) Where is the List of capitalist countries? It would be needed to balance this article. It hasn't been done because it can't be done – the label 'capitalist' could not be used to mean right-wing dictatorships, and would have to be used in the properly broad sense. As with the proper definition of 'socialist', lines can not be fully drawn, and so a conclusive list would be impossible to create – and it would be pretty pointless too. Similar to List of communist countries, it could be argued that a 100% capitalist society does not exist.

Ultimately this is all too simplistic – the world can not be organised into lists as basic as this one. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or rename, the main issue is that the term socialism is used vaguely. The list names three types of counties: those who were ruled by a communist party, those who have a constitutional reference to socialism, and short-lived political entities. Socialism is a wide term, and for instance most counties in Western Europe have had a ruling socialist (often being described as the sub-type socialdemocratic) parties most of the time since World War II. There is for instance no problem arguing that for instance Norway, or even the United Kingdom, is ruled by a socialist government. There seems to be an American bias in this article that uses the term socialism as in its most extreme meaning, excluding probably the majority of countries that have socialist governments. The criteria basically require that the list include only those socialist countries that either have a single-party system or otherwise have defined themselves as such by means of excluding opposition. Even Sweden, that has almost had a continual socialist government since the 1940, would never define the term in its constitution. The list is inherently biased, and the scope must either be widened or the term socialism removed. Arsenikk (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the keep-votes below seems to say "it can be neutralized", but none of the editors actually explain how it can be neutralized. To take my example down to the operative level, is how to define a country as socialist. What are the objective criteria of calling a country socialist? The answer is: none. In the end, whether a country is socialist is a subjective decission, because socialism has many variations, and exists as a wide array of mixed economies. Here are some examples of possible definitions:
  1. The state owns all means of production (this would exclude most socialist countries, because for instance social democracy allows free market enterprise within the frame of socialism).
  2. The state owns infrastructure, such as utilities, railways, school etc. This would include many European counties, but perhaps not the UK.
  3. The state provides free medical care, old-age care, higher education, provides a pension and is what is often called a welfare state. This would include most European countries, but would exclude some poor countries, who while they have the basis of socialist, simply cannot afford those high-end elements such as free higher education and old-age care, and perhaps not even health-care.
  4. The state provides the basic elements of the welfare state, such as secondary education and health-care. This would make Canada a socialist country.
  5. The governing party defines itself as socialist. This would include the UK, but exclude Sweden, although most people would agree that Sweden is more socialist than the UK. However, UK would fall off the list in the (likely) event that the Conservatives won the up-coming election.
There are many more possible definitions of a socialist country, and the list requires an objective and verifiable yes or no answer to whether they meet the criteria. Because any attempt of such a list would be original research or not be verifiable due to scholarly disagreement and the inherent vagueness of the term socialism, the entire scope of the list would have to change (including its name) or the article deleted entirely. Arsenikk (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- My logic is pretty much the same as the last afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Except for a few failed states which currently have no functioning government, every nation in the modern world utilizes socialism in a mixed economy, from Chile to China. This list attempts to draw sharp lines where no such lines can seriously be drawn, so it will always be inherently misleading. Well argued by Matt Lewis and Arsenikk. ~YellowFives 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per nom and Arsenikk. One possible solution might be to rename the article something like "List of nominally socialist countries" or "List of self-identified socialist countries", and remove all nations whose official names and/or governing parties' names do not include explicit references to socialism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename. "Socialist" is too vague and broad of a word to create a definite list from. The definition used in the article (i.e. countries that self-identify as socialist) is not the typical definition of a socialist state (besides the point there is no easily agreed upon definition) and is therefore misleading to call this a "list of socialist countries". Singularity42 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is of interest. Any discussion as to renaming should be on its talk page, not here. "List of nations self-identified as socialist" would seem to suffice -- but leave that to the other venue, not to AfD. Collect (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above vote looks like another 'rename', not just a plain keep. In terms of desired shared outcome, in effect this is similar to 'Delete or Rename'. I think AfDs can be a good place to find out what people want. There is no harm in offering suggestions - as Collect in effect did. In my view the list is better being deleted than remaining the same, hence this Afd. I think the information in the list should be presented in the relevant articles, and I really don't think Wikipedia would miss this list (after all - who has used it??). I do also think lists are over done on Wikipedia - theoretically you can make a lists on anything, and they tend to be very hard to get deleted once they are made. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is, indeed, a "plain Keep." Many things just should not or can not be decided here, and renaming is one of them. I present above one possible rename, but if we start debating names, this AfD could drag on for weeks. The article meets WP standards. If anyone is affronted by the name, then discuss it civilly on the article talk oage. Meanwhile, I do not like having my reasons misstated as a "vote." This is not the place for voting, it is the place for giving reasoning as to what the result of the AfD should bem and the closing admin ought not "count votes". Collect (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) #[reply]
          • Oh come on, comments in AfD's do not make them drag on for weeks! Renames are often a discovered result of genuine AfDs - which is what this is. I find pedantry here technically wrong and really unwarranted. Would you wikilawyer here you wanted to 'delete'? We have to find a solution, and the closing admin is not supposed to just go by a head count - you are right. But we all know that in effect our comments are like votes, whether it is ideal or not, and that closing admin often find they have to tally up and go by the vote when they would rather have more to work on. So whether a rename is even posible has to be looked at here, as (apart from being a obviously beneficial thing to do) it will also help the closing admin make a decision/recommendation. In any case, there is nothing wrong in having debate (or leaving suggestions) in here at all - to frown upon any constructive debate in Wikipedia seems crazy to me, and it can be welcomed wherever it occurs. How often do we see it in areas of nationality, after all? This welcoming of dialogue is especially true for articles/lists like this one, where the talk page (like the List itself) is hardly linked to, and the comments it does attract complain about inherent issues/bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please refactor your comments to avoid improper charges of "wikilawyering." And you do not seem to have weighed in on the talk page in question where I did, indeed, pose the issue. I acted there, as I said should be done. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the scope of the list is for the talk page--I agree with Collect about what it ought to be. Actually ecamining the list, I see it divided into meaningful categories, and not lumping everything together as some seem to argue. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a tangled article that appears to attempt to produce a list of countries that have at some point self-identified as socialist, communist or other label that western sources have described as socialist. However as it includes countries that include constitutional references to some form of socialism that are not in practice socialist (by some definition that is not stated) and excludes those countries that are in practice socialist (by the same unstated definition) but do not explicitly self-identify as such in their name or constitution. While some of the lists or maps might be useful if a clear definition can be found, for example the list of countries that are or were Marxist-Leninist states, these would be better integrated with articles about that system of government (e.g. Marxism-Leninism) where they do not duplicate List of countries by system of government. Most of the article's contents is just a collection of vaguely defined poorly- or unencyclopaedic lists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pursuant to the discussion above, I hase posted the question of title for the article where it belongs - on the article talk page. An AfD is not the place for extended discussion of what words mean in the US, or what exceptions to use of a word may be - that is best left to the article talk page. Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or rename It is quite possible to make a list of socialist countries in the world if one clearly differentiates which branch of socialism they are applying (Marxist-Leninist, Arab, etc.). I should also raise the question of whether two nominations for deletion on the same day do not constitute an instance of Gaming the system. Ladril (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was possible to make a list of socialist countries in 1989; by logic it is possible to make one now. I just started to make edits to the page yesterday, and if you see my edit history you'll find I have done a lot of work on political geography-related pages. I ask for a few more weeks to work on the page and see if it can be made more coherent and consensual. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be possible to make many lists for any given year using varying definitions of "socialist" and various criteria for inclusion. That doesn't necessarily make any of them encyclopaedic lists though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I chose 1989 as an example because the Soviet bloc was still in existence back then. Now, I don't believe the criteria for 'socialist' are as fuzzy as some people seem to believe. To deny that a list of socialist countries can be compiled is to deny socialism ever existed as a political system. What needs to be done is to find a consensus view on what is a socialist country. That's far from impossible. It has been done on other geography pages and it can be done for this one. Ladril (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with that statement is that Soviet-bloc style socialism is just one of a variety of definitions of socialism. For example few people would dispute that Hugo Chávez's government in Venezuela is socialist, but equally few people would describe it as being similar to the socialist regime in Cuba. It seems from the tone of your comment that you are equating socialism with communism, which I get the impression is not an untypical viewpoint in the USA but is not at all common in Europe. I am not denying that a "list of all countries that have at some point in their history have described themselves as "socialist" (using any definition of "socialism") in their constitution or in the name of the country whether or not they were socialist in practice" is possible, indeed this is what the article currently is, what I'm saying is that such a list would be neither useful nor encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The impression you have about my position is wrong. I do not equate socialism with communism (a communist society is one where the working class owns the means of production and there is no need for a state; definitely not what socialism was in theory nor in practice). I also do not believe that any country that calls itself socialist is inherently one, because if that were the case, Nazi Germany would be in the list. However, it's defeatist to assume that no serious list of socialist countries can be compiled. If you consider socialist a country which declared to follow Marxist doctrine and that nationalized and collectivised the means of production, and/or followed other socialist doctrines such as Indian socialism, Arab socialism, African socialism, etc., a useful list can be compiled. Ladril (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further comment before anybody closes A central concern seems to be that there are nations that use the word 'socialist' to define themselves while not really being socialist in a political and economic sense. I agree with the concern. However, one cannot deny that countries have applied different socialist doctrines. Thus, it is easy to find academic studies on Indian socialism, Arab socialism, and African socialism as political doctrines and systems applied in specific countries. If we base the list on academic sources I believe consensus views can be found in a painless way. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable and useful list. If there are any neutrality problems, they can be fixed. --darolew (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, the problem of this page is that it merges different situations starting from pure nominalistic bases. Marxist-Leninist countries, also called Socialist or Communist states (a little note for Matt Lewis: before 1917, in all world, not only in America, the word 'socialism' was interchangeable with 'communism'), are a clearly defined group of countries. The section "Non-Marxist-Leninist" enlists an undefined number of heterogeneous countries on various bases instead: what is the link between Portugal and USSR or India? To make an exemple, it is as to create a page called List of Presidents Roosevelt speaking about both Theodore and Franklin Delano, starting from the fact that they had the same surname.... --Cusio (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but keep. Providing it's renamed to something like 'List of self-declared socialist countries', I don't think there's any problem with it. It's impossible to provide an objective classification of 'socialist countries', but this list doesn't try to do so: it states 'This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions.' That seems acceptable to me, providing it's well-referenced. Inevitably people will try to vandalise it to add countries that don't fit, but that doesn't mean the basic idea of the list is flawed. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Vote of nominator). I feel strongly that ideas for renaming/improvement should be at least proposed here. Esp for article improvement - it is far too easy at AfD's to say "keep - and improve", often by people who have no intention of looking at it any further. The rename (if it came to that) would have to be a good one - I would rather see the list deleted, and the info moved into the relevant articles. Remember that the definition of 'socialism' can still change between 'self-defining' countries! Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Deletion nominations are not a majority voting procedure. What defines whether the article stays or not are the arguments, not the number of votes. Just to let you know. Ladril (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What keeps making the list confusing is that the criterion for defining a socialist country is one where the constitution says "this is a socialist state". I challenge this view. I would propose defining a socialist country as one where the legal system explicitly states that the means of production are not owned by individuals, but by the state for the collective good of the people. Even the constitution of China says this to this day, so I think this is a safe bet. This would make the list shorter but also more coherent to everyone, I believe. Ladril (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view that would make a decent definition of a communist state, but a poor one for a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, the definition of 'socialism' I subscribe to is a Leninist one, where putting ownership of the means of production in the hands of the working class is the 'socialist' step, while further transition to a classless society represents the achievement of 'communism'. I think this reflects history quite well, as no modern society has ever achieved communism (so strictly speaking, there can be no list of 'communist countries'). Perhaps this debate is better left for the article's talk page, but how would you define 'socialism' then? Ladril (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, socialism is an ideology that is opposite to conservatism and occupies a similar, but no more or less extreme, range on the political spectrum. That is, it is about things like a welfare state, state education, public healthcare that is free at the point of use, regulation of business with the aim of preventing excesses of capitalism, public services provided by the state. This is a far less extreme definition than that you subscribe to, and quite probably an artifact of my exposure to European-style socialism (probably closer what another commenter on here described as "social democracy" which to me is nearly synonymous with "socialism"). In name this would make Britain a socialist country, given this was the historical ideology of the Labour Party, but should the Conservatives win the next election, Britain would not belong on the list as the Tories are avowedly not socialist, despite the practical differences in actual policies not being great. All this just illustrates how much use a list of this sort isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I have several objections to your definitions, but I'll stick to a major point for the sake of brevity. There is a major difference between socialist states and socialist governments. Several countries have seen a socialist party achieve political power, but if the state institutions are not reformed so as to give a state a socialist structure (with an emphasis on the working class as the group in power, state property over the means of production, etc.) we can't speak of a socialist state in such a case. The entire Soviet bloc is a case in point of a group of socialist states.
It's true that defining a socialist state is not always easy, and some leeway is needed. However I don't believe European social democracies fit the definition. They never adopted the discourse of taking property over the means of production from capitalists. Ladril (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just notified some relevant portals/articles about this AfD (according to the guidelines). I did not have the time to do this when I opened the AfD, and then unfortunately I was offline for a few days. It seems that people are not aware this list exists, and the posibilities of merging into articles etc, means they need to at least be aware of this AfD. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It uses a precise definition of requiring the country to describe itself as socialist in its name or constitution. This is not the same as social democracy (as seen in Europe) or socialist governments getting elected. Fences&Windows 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • IIRC, I am the source for most of the list (I double-checked and indeed I am), but I did not create it according to that criterion. That "constitutional" definition was added later by someone else. In the main, there were three criteria I considered: identification of the state or sole ruling party with Marxism-Leninism (the most straightforward criterion); states (or sole ruling parties) defined by a non-Marxist form of socialism; and states whose sole ruling parties did not (to my knowledge) adopt explicit socialist language but emerged from a strong left-wing socialist or communist-aligned milieu (Cape Verde is a good example of this one). My thought process was based on practical interpretations of socialism and communism, not theoretical considerations. I won't take a side in this discussion because (a) my list might justly be labeled original research and (b) I think the list is useful. —Sesel (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You realise that you shouldn't have created a list based on your own knowledge and thought processes, right? For heavens sake, next time you edit an article stick to using what sources say and not your personal musings on the topic. Fences&Windows 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • These weren't my "personal musings." I had credible sources to list them. This edit was three years ago. My approach was probably mistaken, but sources can still be found to back up the list and I think it can be repaired. In any event, I have no intention to try to reinstate this article if it is deleted. I don't like your confrontational tone after just my first comment on the issue and a legitimate explanation. —Sesel (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Credible sources often conflict with one another. This is why editors have to reach consensus views to define what goes in an article and what doesn't. I don't believe the list creator took a wrong approach by trying to adopt a definition of socialist country, even if I would dispute some of the choices myself. Ladril (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename As said above. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as "no consensus". Relisting is done when insufficient participation. The discussion had sufficient attention, which clearly shows that the opinions are polarized, and they will remain polarized as long as the article remains in bad state (unreferenced). I strongly suggest to continue the discussion about article improvement in article talk page. Otherwise all useful things uttered will be helplessly lost in AFD archives. Timurite (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a very good point about when to relist and when not to. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses countries which self-described themselves as socialist or "Marxist." Hence the queue of !votes is slightly misleading. Were a country to self-describe itself as "laissez faire" that would be a valid list. We do have a "List of kingdoms" etc. And Dictatorship has a list of them. Sorry -- in line with other WP lists. Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That socialism was a historical reality during the 20th and 21st centuries cannot be denied. What is intended with a list like this is to show that some countries experimented with socialism during a specific time period. I don't think that's advocacy or biased POV. Likewise, a sourced list of fascist countries would not be any more unencyclopedic than any other article of the many that already exist about fascism (though I would prefer to call it a 'list of national socialist countries'). Ladril (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above comment totally at odds with what Wikipedia is about. It uses particular definition(s) of socialism for its argument (and there is nothing 'experimental' about my own socialism, and there are millions like me in the UK alone), and it admits to WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't about proving anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. there is already something similar in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country Ladril (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose is to show the time period when some countries called themselves socialist, and argue that it is meaningful because of when that happened, then first, the list should be deleted and a timeline should be created, and second, it's original research.

A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government. --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is sourced, how can it be original research? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information.
As for the timeline, it can be done.
"A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government." Well, they have in common that they can be listed. Ladril (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you choose to arrange facts in a particular way, and exclude other facts, you are expressing an idea. It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary. The idea behind how you choose to arrange the facts has to come from somewhere -- you either cite that the idea is widely accepted by mainstream, reputable sources, or you admit that you made up the idea yourself and publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. If it can be proven this is not OR, then delete the page and make a timeline. If it is purely OR, then delete the page and leave it be. --Dbratland (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to the above that sources on their own are never enough. Articles (and especially Lists, as they connect entities intrinsically) need purpose, balance, WP:weight, reliable sourcing (WP:verifiability and WP:SOURCE), must pass neutrality (WP:NPOV) and No Original Research (WP:NOR), and must also pass WP:REDFLAG. Articles must generally avoid containing forked information (WP:fork), nor be a WP:coatrack article designed to make a point (the 'experiment of socialism' perhaps?). If I had a penny for every time I came across some variation of this skewed logic on Wikipedia: Source(s) collected/discovered = any form of developed statement/assumption/creation from the sourced 'fact/facts' is/are allowed. It's all in the guidelines . Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The word 'experiment' is not POV-charged. In the dictionary experiment is defined as "an innovative act or procedure". Besides, no one is arguing for its inclusion in the page lead. Ladril (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary." We completely agree. However, there is no shortage of third-party sources defining what a socialist country is and providing lists of them. As is done for all lists (even featured lists) editors should try to arrive at a consensus as to which definitions to favour the most. No one is trying to exclude "facts" from the list. In fact the objections to the list seem to come from people who make claims that just about any country can be included in the list (or arguments to that effect). If that's the case, it's up to them to find reliable sources to justify the inclusion of the UK in the list (as they have argued on this very page). Ladril (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You talk as if a list once made is established, and then it's up to others to make it work. Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles. And it would still retain all the problems related above. The US has a socialist history too, and many of its services are still state run. Wikipedia lists are not adventure playgrounds to explore possible boundries: we have main articles that should cover these matters. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles." That assuming we could find a consensus view to define the UK as a socialist state. I honestly doubt we can. Having a socialist party in power is not the same as building a socialist state. Ladril (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some (but not all) definitions of socialism the UK's welfare state and National Health Service make it a socialist country. Having a socialist party in power is an equally valid, although different, definition of what makes a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt any sources would back that up. Ladril (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to say why? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Would you like to explain why you feel this article should be kept? AfD is not a vote, and so simply stating "keep" (or "delete", etc) without explaining why you think that does not normally help a consensus emerge, and they are thus routinely ignored by the closing administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not elaborating, but my keyboard is so badly broken I could only type "keep" with it and be legible. I think it is a legitimate topic to have a list about, since socialism is well documented and would be a large enough topic to cover. If the issue is clarity, perhaps we could insist that the article cover only countries with socialism explicitly mentioned in their constitutions or their founding. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Socialism is an interesting concept, with its wide range from the British labour party to the cuban communists. There is a connecting ideology, and |(sometimes) an attempt to opose the capitalist status quo. The fact that, in 2009, there are enough such countries to form a list is remarkable. The comparisons between them yield some fascinating insights. How can this list be anything other than notable? Now, some of the arguements appear to be ideologicial: we don't like socialists so exclude them from WP. others seem to be about classification: who qualifies? The first is no reason to delete, and the second is far less likely to occur without a list. Deleting an article because it causes healthy debate is not something I am comfortable with. OK, the accuracy problem makes it appear un-encyclopaedic, but tough. WP can be edited whenever there is an election: it usually is. --Brunnian (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there is such a wide range is an interesting feature of socialism but it does not make a useful list - we already have articles on the different forms of socialism, and a list of countries by form of government. The comparisons between them might be interesting, but they are almost certainly original research. Note also that you seemingly see this list as a "list of countries that currently have any type of socialist government" whereas Ladril apparently sees it as a "list of countries that have ever had a Marxist-Leninist government and state structure or have declared themselves to be 'socialist' (meaning Marxist-Leninist) at any point in their history". The two are very, very different lists - that the proponents of keeping can't even agree on what the list is a list of seems as good an argument to delete it as any. Doubly so when you add in the problems of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV (at least one of which is inevitable in every interpretation of the list I've seen here). Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming there is a lack of consensus on what the list should contain, per guidelines it is preferable to work towards consensus on talk pages rather than to delete pages arguing no consensus (especially if you haven't used the article's talk page to seek the consensus in the first place). Besides, the list of states by system of government does not replace this one, for several reasons. One of the most important is that if you're going to have historical entries for socialism in an encyclopedia, by logic you need a list of countries who were socialist.Ladril (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW your characterization of my position is incorrect. I'm willing to argue for the inclusion of non-Marxist socialist states - such as Tanzania - on the list. On the other hand, I'm not sure about other cases. But this is a debate for the article's talk page. I believe the time spent arguing here could be better spent improving the list. Ladril (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • e/c I don't think anyone here is really trying to censor the mention of socialism - if anything it is the oposite in a sense. You seem to have a very 'idealistic' idea about what Wikipedia sets out to do. Wikipedia is meant to inform certainly, but is never supposed to be provocative or stimulating in quite the way you feel comfortable with (which is others discomfort of course). Any stimulation should be a side effect of neutral and encyclopedic information. If this list is unencyclopedic, it should be deleted full stop. That is the 'toughness' of the Afd process, and it will give editors the time to improve the area of socialism on Wikipedia in the articles that are both approved and actually linked to. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people want to keep this list, why not sandbox it, or copy it into a wikiproject perhaps? Then link to it in your discussions. It is Original Research, and not mainspace stuff at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of "want" or "not want" -- it is a question of whether sufficient and valid reasoons for deletion are presented. Lists in general are found on WP and not deleted as OR, so that is not, in itself, a reason for deletion. See Lists of Kingdoms, Dictaroships and more -- each amd all of which are OR by the logic presented in this discussion. WP has invariably ruled that lists are not OR for trivial reasons. WP has over six hundred thousand examples of "List of" as an article name or redirect. Collect (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the majority view is that Wikipedia is too big (not strictly in an exclusionist sense, but due to too many unknown/forked/non-notable/synthesised/etc articles). Many also feel that unattended Afds should delete as default. There has always been a problem with article and list removal on Wikipedia. I admit that I have seen an un-policy and unwieldy list pass a small Afd before now. But that doesn't make it right. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing an excellent reason why "default to delete" is not policy. Sox hundred thousand lists await your nomination for deletion <g>. Collect (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What reason was that then? It's only for unattended AfDs. If a list has no links or contributors then it hasn't been properly realised. I can't see the sense in supporting lists you've never seen anyway. I appreciate solidarity, but.. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have serious doubts a consensus will be reached. Opinions seem too polarized. Like I've said often, I would prefer we took this time to improve the page. Ladril (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename at the very least, delete otherwise: the socialist article says that the term itself is difficult to define, and this article seems to be more about ex-communist governments. There are countries such as France which had a government in the not-so-distant past formed by the Socialist Party, but because the country indicates that it is a republic in its constitution, it is not included. This article has neither a WP:NPOV name nor NPOV content. With the name Socialism in the title, I doubt that this article will ever be NPOV, as each country in the world has a different opinion of what socialism means. Indeed, even within countries themselves, people cannot come to any agreement on the appropriate definition. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A section about name is on the talk page. Collect (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments 1. 'Socialist' is a more neutral name than 'Communist' to refer to these states because the vast majority of them adopted the name socialist (making the term 'communism' more of an imputation). 2. Also, as said before, the definition of what is a socialist country should be reached through consensus. This is done for every list on the encyclopedia and I don't see why it can't be done for this one. 3. No, a state does not become socialist merely by having a socialist party come to power. Many of the former socialist states of Eastern Europe have seen the Communist/Socialist parties come back to power and this does not mean they became socialist states again. 4. I believe the best comment made on this page about the list is the one by Cusio above (practically ignored so far): the major problem with the list is that states are chosen on a purely nominalist basis. The list needs a lot more research and consensus, and a more academic definition of socialist state, but not deletion (especially not if the deletion is intended only to prove the point that socialism can't be defined). Ladril (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Also ok with no consensus close, based on diversity of opinion. I can't believe the teabaggers have not added the United States to the article yet.--Milowent (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how words can have different meanings in different parts of the world. I can see diversity in socialism's definition, but not particularly in the opinions on what to do with the list. They are two different things. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 27 November 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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exocious

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

Barely coherent, unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MuffledThud (talk) 17:42, 24 November 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. Let it WP:SNOW. Fences&Windows 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 22, 1973

[edit]
January 22, 1973 (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 typically does not have articles about individual days, and this is already covered in 1973. Prod contested by author, claiming that it's rare that a single day has four major historical events, but unless that rarity can be shown to be notable through reliable sources, it wouldn't justify an article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 24 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK underground

[edit]
UK underground (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 UK underground scene has changed over the years and will mean different things to different people. "UK underground" or "UK underground scene" is an attractive proposition for an article, but as the term can be used to refer to different things at different times, depending on the speaker, it cannot be used in the same way that Beatnik or Hippie or Madchester is used. It is too vague. It may refer to graffiti artists, hip-hop or garage music, or the Punk scene. The material in the article appears to be contentious speculation on a loose term that has not been clearly defined by a reliable source and so requires a bit of original research to pull together mentions of the term and try to make something out of it. While there are aspects within the article that are notable - such as the underground press, psychedelic music, etc - pulling together these elements into a cohesive article is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. SilkTork *YES! 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a content dispute. Proper coverage can be discussed on the article talk page. This is no more SYN that any other general article about a period , but it would help to have some refs talking about it in a general way. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG said it correctly, there is plenty here to work with and improvements to the text, expansion of the wider social context and more specifics as well as more refs will help...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec x 2) The term is an established historical usage for a specific cultural movement, which was active approximately mid 1960s - mid 1970s. Numerous sources, both contemporaneous and subsequent, use it in this way, e.g. the recent Tate gallery book, Summer of Love.[15] It has a distinct identity: The underground or alternative society – and the term was used widely, unselfconsciously and proudly – of the Sixties was an international phenomenon.The Independent (2002) Wikipedia follows established usage and to not do so is original research. It has also been used to refer to other activities at different times, but that does not invalidate this usage. Tony Elliott specifically differentiates its earlier from its later usage.[16] When this happens, the solution is to disambiguate, not to delete. The article is not "contentious speculation" or WP:SYNTHESIS, as the various elements that are present in it are referred to by the sources as part of this movement, e.g. Floyd were the official group of the underground. The bible of the underground was the International Times, the meeting point of the underground became the UFO club.The Guardian (2006) Release, an underground organisation[17] the Arts Lab ... was an "epicentre" of the underground scene.[18] At the time of the nom, there were 28 references listed on the article talk page,[19] and a reading of these clearly establishes the legitimacy of the article content. It is standard editing practice to combine information from different sources which address the same subject in order to create a comprehensive article about that subject. Ty 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace4545 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is necessarily of high importance culturally, not only in Britain but because of the UK Underground's prominent (historically and currently) role in the international scene. If the article has shortcomings that need rectifying, it should be fixed ... else that applies to 2/3 of WP content. No doubt there are those who'd rather see WP get all high-minded and stuffy, but this sort of thing is of real flesh-and-blood interest to a huge chunk of Earth's creative citizenry. The very idea of eliminating such things is dangerous to the very concept of WP itself. Twang (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: important article on key aspect of 1960s/70s UK culture. Important to note that various strands - music, magazines, festivals, drug culture etc. etc. - were totally intertwined in a single cohesive movement at the time. Article title may need to be made more time-specific, and article certainly needs improving. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 30 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip R. Bjork

[edit]
Philip R. Bjork (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 any reliable sources on google search. It is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Withdrawn - The article has been improved a lot and now has sources. December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 19:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when he was born? I don't think that is a requirment for notability. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the nominator has withdrawn his nomination; but since some respondents have advocated deletion, this AfD is not eligible for a speedy keep close. I'd like to see what some editors other than the usual ARS crew have to say. Deor (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Your implication above is that you do not care what the "usual ARS crew" has to say, which is needlessly insulting to these editors. But even if you still want to assume bad faith on these editors' part, User:Sasata (an editor with whom I am not familiar but who has indeed worked hard on this article) is hardly part of some "crew" and says to keep. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have surely not agreed in every AfD in which we both participated and he also said to keep. And as far as anyone else who said to delete initially, one has removed his comments altogether and even the nominator has withdrawn. That makes at least four non-ARS regulars who have changed positions or said to keep. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep as notability had been asserted and sourced and the subject of the BLP passes WP:PROF. And I did not opine until after having a hand in improving the article. WIth respects to Deor, that I might be a part of the "usual ARS crew" does not mean I have some sort of kneejerk response to opining a keep, as I actually do what I can to improve the encyclopedia. There's no need to wait for a non-ARS input if the concerns of the nominator have so heartily been addressed that even the nominator has withdrawn. Again and with respects, that suggestion seems to indicate that editors belonging to ARS are somehow second-class citizens and that their opinions do not matter. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll bite. Exactly which criteria of WP:PROF are met here? I'm not seeing any at all; nor have I found any sources that might back up any claim to satisfy any. Deor (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure: "director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines " shows him an acknowledged expert in his subject who has made significant impact. .. Discovering multiple species also shows that DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) To Deor: most telling is Wikipedia:BIO#Academics stating "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources (emphasis mine). Even were they the only sources available, primary sources could be used to source notability for an Academic. However and thankfully, secondary sources have been provided.
Even more interesting is the text of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (WP:PROF) which offers "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines" and "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." (again, my emphasis). Among the indicators as provided by WP:PROF, I note
  1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact to his field. Such discovery has been sourced.
  2. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas has a significant impact on how his field is taught at academic institutions. His discovery is cause for existing books to require being re-written and course sylibi to be changed.
  3. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society" Perhaps it might be argued that serving as director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is not major, however respected that position might be... but I can accept that it is indeed major and influential.
  4. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" Again, discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have existed in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact even outside his field, as indicated by the provided news articles.
I applaud the work done to the article by others and the sources added. WP:PROF is an very inciteful guideline that covers the special instances or academic notability, as it allows a much wider consideration than most other WP:BIOguidelines because of the nature of the "world of ideas". I suggest it be read in detail by any opining herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you're not very convincing. Has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources—only 14 citations for the Iguanodon paper hardly suggest "a significant impact to his field", and as for "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", there are no sources at at all in evidence that attest to any significant impact. With regard to your points 2, 3, and 4, I rather doubt that you yourself believe that Bjork "made a significant impact in the area of higher education", "held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution" (I've yet to see any evidence that he even taught at SDSM), or "made substantial impact outside academia". Such obvious overreaching and misrepresentation of accomplishments does little service to either the article's subject or your argument. Deor (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we might agree to disagree, as guideline's allowing latitude in the cases of Academics is to me very clear. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in addendum, I see no claim in the article that he taught at SDSM, only that he was director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology... and THAT is sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 24 November 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. Discounting the SPA IP !voters, there's no support for keeping this article. It might be possible to write an article about Meara, but this article is not it. Fences&Windows 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Meara

[edit]
John Meara (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 an ad. It began as an ad, created at Children's Hospital Boston by John Meara himself, though he farmed the writing of it off to multiple people. At that time, some two years ago, the article included only a c.v. and a bunch of external links to organizations this surgeon was once associated with. Since then, another editor has turned this resume into a promotional rant about health care quality and techniques used in maxillofacial surgery. ALL of the cited references are concerned with describing the practice of surgery in general, Dr. Meara is not prominently featured in any of them. I would have speedied this as a G11 due to overwhelming evidence, but this survived a prod some time ago. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jesus christ. This reads like the stuff they send me to donate money for charity. It is a gigantic ad. My sig says it best --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also delete all of the images used in the article. Blatant advertising. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'm sure that whoever John Meara hired to write this had decent intentions, this is nothing further than a publicity stunt. All doctors have chosen a noble profession, but that doesn't make them all worthy of a wikipedia article...especially when it's shameless publicity. Each of the headings read like an individual article, and few of them directly have ANYTHING to do with John Meara. Put the content on the sites that they rightfully belong on and get rid of this.
  • Keep or Rename Under Notability (academics), working in collarboration with Partners in Health and Paul Farmer satisfies criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the present name*changed to delete--see below for the reasons. An article could be written, but the first step is to delete this one entirely.. Being " Plastic Surgeon-in-Chief of the Department of Plastic Surgery at Children's Hospital Boston.", one of the most important hospitals in the world, indicates recognition as having made a significant impact in his field, essentially the same as a distinguished full professor. Scopus shows 55 publications. Highest count 58, 33, 33 The article needs some drastic editing- I've started. COI is never a reason for deletion. There is a distinction between cleaving out the inappropriate parts of an article, & smiting promotionalism, and deleting all articles in which it appears. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never, really? Not even when it has its own speedy deletion criterion? This article is a poster boy for G11 and it will remain a G11 due to the promotional efforts of a concert of Dr. Meara's employees, as proven by the edits of the anon IP who voted in favor of keeping. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the criterion is that they be both exclusively promotional and that it can not be removed without fundamental rewriting. But see my comment below. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modifications, as this page provides useful information for patients, families, medical students and surgical residents in all the noted areas....cleft, craniofacial, global health. The site is referenced with appropriate articles and does meet the "academic" criteria in the "notability" section of Wiki. Pubmed has 52 peer reviewed articles under "meara jg" on these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the info on the global health and the relationship with PIH is valuable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, Children's Hospital Boston is mentioned, however, as are Los Angeles, Melbourne, etc. This is a valuable resource that is not only support by selected publications and references, but Partners in Health as well.
Also, Anetode: there are thousands of anonymous IP addresses editing wikipedia daily. When did a wikipedia policy form that you must have an account to share your knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) — 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Loaded question, ain't it? Tell me, isn't it against Harvard computer lab policies to "use of any Harvard University owned computer or network for private, commercial, non-Harvard business purposes"? Or were you instructed to do so in an official capacity on behalf of HMS or CHB? One must disclose these things, you know. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the present name. I am in absolute agreement with User DGG. This man has clearly made a significant impact in his field and I believe the information presented in this article is infinitely valuable to the general public, especially those in need of Dr. Meara's help. Most families have a hard enough time as is trying to find solutions for their children with these very specific ailments, this page presents an opportunity to give parents information on how to help their child. I also believe this page should be kept for international reasons as well. Sure, we may have heard of Children's Hospital Boston if we live in the States, but what about an International family that is searching for an answer for their child?? This page can only help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — 98.14.118.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I need to say that I consider most of the four above comments to be extremely irrelevant arguments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its role is to provide the information about appropriate subjects under appropriate headings. An article on a plastic surgeon is not the place to discuss global health in general, or the various areas of plastic surgery. It's a place to present his individual career and describe briefly the specific notable contributions he has personally made--describe, not elaborate on in the manner of a promotion for his projects. I continue to think him notable, but comments like these do indicate a strong promotional campaign. I am continuing to remove promotional material. I suggest another look, to see that even such articles as this can be improved. I admit that after rereading some of the support,& some of the contents, I had a strong instinctive desire to remove the article. But more rationally, I think it can be rescued. But if the present nonsensical support continues, it's likely that the consensus will judge it not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree with you there. The arguments are clearly not "promotional" and they are certainly relevant. His individual career includes global health, and various areas of plastic surgery. Not promotional, straight facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
the above response is really discouraging. I have never voted before to delete an article on the grounds of the manner of its writing & defense here, but I conclude that the lesson has to be taught somehow. I've changed my position to Delete, & I'm glad I didn't spend any more time with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thought there was no end to your patience. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 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. Although the keeps looked worringly like argument from assertion, a Google Book search confirms their claim that the book is notable. http://books.google.co.uk/books?um=1&q=%22the+key+to+theosophy%22+-author%3Ablavatsky+-author%3Ablavatskaja&btnG=Search+Books Fences&Windows 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Key to Theosophy

[edit]
The Key to Theosophy (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 trivial content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Ash (talk) 15:30, 24 November 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vendormate (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 per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why this prejudice against ordinary businesses? This one is the topic of at least one news story and mentioned in others. If it was a band, comic book, video game, etc. there would be no question of deleting.Borock (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability in its niche is sufficient, if the niche is more than trivial. The professional healthcare purchasing market is not trivial. The company seems to have an important market share. I do have to point out that we want notable businesses, not "ordinary" ones--that was an unfortunate choice of words. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - small segment notability is still notable - Smerdis is on a wrong track on this one. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:35, 25 November 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. Tone 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius "Pete" Peterson

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

While there are citations, the subject fails WP:BIO. Written apparently by a relative who has written numerous articles about WP:NN family members and coworkers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 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 StephenBuxton. Non admin close. Jujutacular T · C 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Weds Tahseen

[edit]
Haider Weds Tahseen (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 references that I can find. External links in the article are general places where one can search, and have nothing to do with the subject of the article. The film appears to be a family wedding video, clearly not anywhere near notable enough for an article. ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/early close this really should have been speedied... Non-notable film that even the article's creator admits is "private" for the family. Hazir (talk) 15:08, 24 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)

[edit]
1974 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday) (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:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:02, 24 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)

[edit]
1992 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday) (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:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:58, 24 November 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 article looks like advertising and there is no real evidence of notability Fences&Windows 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashflow INSITE

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

In my opinion, this article should be deleted as it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for companies and organizations, WP:COMPANY. According to WP:COMPANY, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". Now, this article currently has three references and two external links. Of these, two of the references and one of the external links lead to one of the pages of the company's website, which is certainly not a reliable secondary source. However, The third reference is an online newspaper article, which does appear to be a reliable source, but Cashflow INSITE is only briefly mentioned, as it occupies only about a quarter of the article. Meanwhile, the second external link leads to an online blog archive, which does not appear to be reliable or acceptable, per WP:SPS. So, only one of five references and external links is a reliable, second-party source. Therefore, this article does not meet WP:COMPANY, as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Thus, this article should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:39, 24 November 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. Let us give the article some time. Tone 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Media Studios

[edit]
Experience Media Studios (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:CORP, also seems a blatant ad. gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and further expand and source as first movie and television studio organized in the emerging UAE media industry. Format and style are to be addressed with regular editing, not deletion. Heck, I'll have a go at cleaning it up myself. This one seems a keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do you have evidence of significant third party coverage? rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tough to provide Western news coverage, as with their being the first movie and television studio organized in the United Arab Emirates, they could care less about Western press coverage and care even less about possible Western investers. Makes this a case of an unfortunate systemic bias. With respects, significant coverage is required only if notability is dependent on that coverage. The assertion of being the first movie and television studio organized in the UAE is the assertion of notability and as a "first", it has been verified... [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]... As a "first" that has been verified, it serves the project to allow this article to grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 27 November 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 merge to Davidson County Schools. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ledford Middle School

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

Middle school lacking reliable sources to establish notability of a school (per semi-consensus that pre-secondary schools are generally not notable).

Prod tag removed by new author. tedder (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, PROD removed by a sock of a blocked user. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, even in bad-faith, an AFD doesn't hurt much. tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely. I just thought it would help at the end of the day when determing what the consenus is (i.e. who objected in the first place). Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha- good to know. And it's certainly useful after the !vote is archived. tedder (talk) 04:50, 24 November 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 merge to Newshounds. He's only known for this webcomic, and the bulk of editors support a merge (though there is little sourced material to merge). Fences&Windows 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas K. Dye

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

Mostly unsourced BLP about a webcomic artist. Doesn't say why he's notable, aside from having written something notable. He's not a professional (in fact, the article explicitly states that he's trying to become a professional), and the article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable because he is the winner of the 2007 Ursa Major Award for "Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work". See here. ISD (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn’t notable because of that. At the very most this would be a notability factor for Newshounds. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is irrelevant. An attempt to improve it was made. I searched for sources, and couldn't find anything resembling a reliable source. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is "irrelevant"? Hardly civil. I thought highlighting one of the things which ticked the notability box is relevant. Equally, the fact you can't find sources online doesn't mean there aren't any - problems with the article should be flagged so that other people with access to other sources can try and fix the issues. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I meant to say that the latter part of your comment is irrelevant. Flagging the article is not a required precursor to AFD. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating an article for deletion is not a requirement either. And if you have a read of deletion policy you'll see that you should tag the page for clean-up. Hiding T 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 24 November 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 A7 GedUK  08:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big League

[edit]
The Big League (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 fantasy football league with no coverage in independent reliable sources Jevansen (talk) 12:24, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodywood Records

[edit]
Hoodywood Records (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, almost blatant enough for WP:CSD#G3, but as it has been in Wikipedia for over three years I bring it here. Notice the number of redlinks for everyone concerned and, in the "findsources" searches which I have put on the article talk page, the complete absence of "News" hits for the company, its parent or its founder, and of any indication from a reliable source that the company has ever done anything or even exists. The author IslandGal (talk · contribs) has no other edits. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 24 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky

[edit]
The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky (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 a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a list of other authors which are already mentioned on the main page, there is little point in creating another Blavatsky article for the sake of it. Ash (talk) 11:04, 24 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky

[edit]
HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky (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 a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a dubious list of people "influenced" by Blavatsky which may only be Cranston's opinion, there is little point in creating a separate article. Ash (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: the basis of this nomination is NOT a question of notability but that the article is a content fork.—Ash (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
    • Reply I am confused by what you are suggesting; are you claiming that the book is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky because it is a biography? If the biography itself is notable, then it deserves its own article. So, I am confused as to how this is not a question of notability. Mrathel (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The basis of the nomination is that the stub article on this book is a content fork of the Blavatsky article. The guidance for content forks makes no special mention or exception for books. If this book has independent notability and was particularly influential there may be an argument for having its own article. At the moment the article has trivial content and I do not see any potential additional content available that will not just duplicate material about Blavatsky already available on that main page. To give an example, there are endless biographical books about Hitler (and each may have many hits in Google Scholar) but each book does not require an article unless the book's notability was not just that it piggy-backed on Hitler's notability.—Ash (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book is not independantly notable of Blavatsky, and does not need its own page. A mention on the Blavatsky page is sufficient. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unlike the other books considered for deletion on or by hpb today, this is from a reputable trade publisher, and i remember it getting some significant attention when it was published. the article as it stands is, of course, horrible, but i would seriously recommend it just get fixed up and left to stand. of course it has no notability outside hpb, as its a biography of hpb. i dont understand that argument. the question would be is it a notable book about hpb, and i say it is. i will try to find reviews if i can.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From your comment you may not be aware of the relevant guidance supporting the nomination, please checkout WP:CFORK. The book may meet the notability requirements as laid out in WP:BK, but this is not the basis of the nomination in this case.—Ash (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the referral to cfork. i hadnt read that as of yet. Im not sure that this applies here, though i would see how an endless series of articles on books by and about her would apply. i still think this book may deserve a stand alone article (i tend to support more stand alone articles on books in general, as long as they are "real" ie trade publications (i was a bookseller once)), but i do recognize that it more likely only deserves significant mention in the hpb article, and should not be spun out as its own article if refs are not found, as i see someone below has attempted. if i can find something to show notability, great, but if i dont i do support merge.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i would say this shows adequate notability. the amazon.com page [28] references the initial publishers 50k advertising budget, which is fairly significant, publishers do this for their major frontlist titles. on the minus side, the book was picked up in paper by a small press associated with the movement, so it didnt have "legs" to justify a trade paperback reprint.I just linked references to this book in WP. not a lot, but some had not been linked yet. it does seem to be an important source book for articles on this subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just regarding the Google Books issue, I would point out that this is a fairly recent book (as books go), so it's not very likely to have yet created a significant number of hits in "books". Is there a way to check the number of hits in newspapers or magazines?Wjhonson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Google Scholar at this link shows 28 additional hits.Wjhonson (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book was originally published 16 years ago, you may have been mislead by the ISBN relating to the most recent edition. Try looking for: Cranston, Sylvia (1993), HPB : the extraordinary life and influence of Helena Blavatsky, founder of the modern theosophical Movement, Tarcher/Putnam, ISBN 0874776880. As for the appearances in Google Scholar, these seem to be articles about Blavatsky rather than the book.—Ash (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a content fork per nom, as a soapbox, and as a non-notable book and lacking real content per NBeale. It is also what some Wikipedians call "fancruft". Alternately, merge into Helena Blavatsky as suggested by MacGyverMagic. 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

*Keep Since everyone wants to delete this, I say keep. Why did they change it to "Articles for deletion"? It used to be called "Votes for deletion". Tilliegone (talk) 21:19, 2 December 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSNVersionProxy

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

Self-promotion, not notable, spam Erwin (talk) 10:56, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contensis

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

Promotion for non-notable product; article by SPA. Sources are just a list of websites of customers. Unable to find any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gets a lot of google hits, and 8 google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, and many of the early ones are references to trade shows the company attended, articles published by the company, or directory listings. As far as news, there is one item related to the GMail domain owned by Contensis in the UK that is covered by the press--albeit very lightly. Aside from that one item, I don't see enough coverage to warrant notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The product has a customer base and usage equivalent to almost all of the other CMS vendors that are on WIKI, This is demonstrated by links to very prestigious customers, who would certainly not chose a product without notability. The product has been exhibited at trade shows for almost 10 years and is one of the UK market Leaders. Anyone serious about Content Management, would include Contensis in their list of vendors to explore. Contensis has beaten most of the other vendors listed on WIKI in competitive tender at one point or another. User:RichardC786 9:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mental (film)

[edit]
Mental (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)

School project which hasn't received much (or any) attention in reliable independent sources. There are no Google News hits for the producer/director/writer of the film, no awards or reviews, no famous people involved. Fails WP:N by a wide margin. Fram (talk) 09:51, 24 November 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 merge to Use Your Fingers. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to Hitler's Handicapped Helpers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to Hitler's Handicapped Helpers (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 deleted material on a self-released demo album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 24 November 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 only source in the article is a blog, the two links provided in the debate are listing-type mentions at best, and the argument from SAAFL amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On the talk page, the article is defended as "part of an attempt to raise the profile of volleyball in Australia", but Wikipedia is not for promotion. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Park Volleyball League

[edit]
Murray Park Volleyball League (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 our WP:GNG \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep To whom it may concern, the nominated deletion of this article is based upon superficial research, and does not meet the criterion under which it has been tagged. The article has been tagged for not adequately reaching wikipedia's notability standards. Under notability policy, the article falls under the category of "organizations and companies". Upon consulting the policy for such articles, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The Murray Park Volleyball League does, indeed, meet this requirement. The South Australian electorate of Morialta sends out an annual publication, detailing the available sporting competitions within the electorate. This is part of the national Be Active [29] scheme - a plan to increase fitness/health levels and to decrease the problematic obesity epedemic. While the league is amateur in nature, it is a genuine league that is used as a stepping stone for higher-level volleyball honours in Australia. It receives significant recognition from independent, secondary sources, as shown by the aforementioned government example. This is no different from such leagues as the South Australian Amateur Football League, which has a wikipedia article that has never been questioned; I would like to point out that the SAAFL article only provides references that are written by the executives of the league itself, yet this is allowed on wikipedia. The proponents of the Murray Park Volleyball League have provided credible sources, and the article is still challenged. For these reasons that I have mentioned, the MPVL article should not be deleted.Higginson21 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that it's notable. From what I can tell, this is an intramural program at Adelaide University. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG, not even an attempt at a claim of notabiity in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link is to a one page blog with no indication of notability, Google turns up nothing. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable amateur league. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this League is not an intramural programme. It is in fact played at the University of South Australia. Link may be found at http://www.infosearchweb.com/document_index.cfm?document_id=689&dataset_doc_id=13&subframe=sub_frame&dataset_search=&council_search=&council_op=AND. This information is slightly out of date. The League is no longer part of a fitness class but has developed into a thriving competition with 21 teams. The Campbelltown Council in Adelaide South Australia has been contacted to update this information. The lack of other links is due to the low status of volleyball in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mug811 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanda the Panda

[edit]
Shanda the Panda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Shanda Fantasy Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced article about a comic that doesn't seem to demonstrate its notability. Has been notability tagged since June. Article also consists entirely of plot summary. If this is deleted, the article about its parent company should be deleted as well. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:57, 24 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrates

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

Doesn't seem to demonstrate adequate notability. The game has not been released yet (it is in open beta), and it was runner up (not winner) for a Gleemax award. The Gleemax website only existed for one year, so the notability of the award is questionable. It doesn't seem to have garnered much attention from press or anything else. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser games are in fact covered by both. GameFAQs has Online/Browser and Flash, while MobyGames has Browser. But data for browser-based games is provided exclusively by the users of the sites, and GameFAQs has several restrictions on what browser and Flash games are allowed while MobyGames has none at all, so GF/MG's lack of a page for the game isn't necessarily a sign that a game isn't notable any more than lack of a Wikipedia article is a sign that a game isn't notable. I think its awards might be a better gauge. Reach Out to the Truth 18:20, 25 November 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 nominator withdrew  7  06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engreet

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

Taqi Haider (talk) 05:47, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ratliff

[edit]
Evan Ratliff (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 appears to be a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. He doesn't appear to be notable outside this event. — Dædαlus Contribs 05:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It must have happened when I had that twinkle error. I nom'd the page using it, but when I got here, it wasn't created yet, so I did it again, and that time it worked.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:34, 24 November 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 merge to Hillsong Church. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church Stockholm

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

Notability of this religious organization is not sufficiently asserted. Although there are secondary sources, these sources do not address the notability question. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hillsong Church Stockholm is also referred to as Hillsong Stockholm in news articles not Hillsong Church Stockholm. --Arie Scheurwater (User Page | Talk | Global Contribs) 13:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Actually, if the outcome of this AFD is redirection, the others should be reviewed to see if the same should apply there. However, each needs to be reviewed on their own merit and don't have any real bearing on the decision for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep K, Plastikspork according to u what is the notable question. --Arie Scheurwater (User Page | Talk | Global Contribs) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Per WP:ORG, there needs to be significant coverage. The sourcing in the article merely mentions Stockholm as one of the places where the church has expanded. Note also that this same guideline indicates that local chapters of natinal and international organisations are not usually notable indpendently unless significant coverage can be demonstrated beyond that chapters local area. None of the sourcing in the article meets these guidelines, and searching for more sources does not turn up anything that would establish the Stokholm instance of the church as independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)
1. CHECK
2. CHECK
Additional criteria are:
  • Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead.
  • The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
Point 1. CHECK, because DAGEN is a Swedish national newspaper, SMH is the newspaper for Sydney
Point 2. CHECK, because they are know around the world
It meets the requirements --Arie Scheurwater (User Page | Talk | Global Contribs) 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is the Stockholm chapter of the church international in scope? Where are the reliable sources to establish this? How does this chapter distinguish itself from the parent organisation? I don't see the sources establishing any of this. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the argument is that the Dagen articles are about the Stockholm congregation, and we do have the rule WP:GNG--technically, it is just past the borderline of notability. I agree the evidence is fairly minimal , since the key reference, [34] indicates they have only 92 members, but that was in 2006. I could find no later figures. I think the best way to deal with the Hillsong branches is to merge the articles. Looking at the template, I am a little concerned we are building a WW:Walled Garden. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hillsong Church per WP:CLUB, "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." Click23 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas James

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

Extremely non-notable entertainer/personal trainer. The article reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia entry. Warrah (talk) 03:58, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffersonian Christianity

[edit]
Jeffersonian Christianity (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 verifiable reliable sources exist to document the existence of this as a group or movement; and certainly nothing establishing notability or even tending to it. (Note that the article is about a current ongoing religious group or practice called "Jeffersonian Christianity", which is not the same as the religious beliefs Jefferson had, which are already well discussed at Thomas Jefferson and religion.) Tb (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes from nominator:
A speed deletion request was denied here: [35], with the admin commenting: declined, A7 really doesn't/shouldn't apply to this, which is a religious denomination. Once the author is given a chance to add sources, take to AfD if you still believe that it lacks notability. I do not understand the admin's statement that A7 doesn't apply to religious organizations.
The author created a web page for this group, with content initially virtually identical to the article, though later the article was changed. See [36]. First the author said, "I found this website" [37] and when I asked if perhaps he had created it, he said he had: [38]. A Yahoo group was created by someone as well: [39] with virtually no content. Tb (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that speedy deletion was correctly declined, in that the article asserts a direct connection to a notable work of one of the founding fathers. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make sense; it's different from what the admin said, though it doesn't seem to matter much any longer. Such things are always judgment calls. Tb (talk) 04:35, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday Institute

[edit]
Faraday Institute (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:ORG: is not "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] reliable, and independent of the subject." Article is sourced to the topic's own website, single sentence bare mentions (which WP:NOTE describes as "plainly trivial" coverage), anonymously-authored pieces promoting FI courses and/or mentions by affiliated persons/organisations. Sources to date are:

Faraday website
Bare/no mentions
Affiliated
  • [59] (McGrath is on the FI's Advisory Board)
Promotional
Questions for nom, hopefully w/nom's answers reflected directly below each question (see below)

Questions. Just so we're clear, unless otherwise indicated by you above, you agree that the indicated refs are: a) verifiable; b) non-trivial/incidental; c) reliable; and d) independent secondary sources?

  • You've misunderstood my question, as will I expect be clear if you re-read it.

Also, do you agree that:

  1. in addition to those indicia we are to consider notable and demonstrable effects on education?
    Is that a yes?
  2. if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability?
    But don't you agree that where the depth of attention is not substantial, that multiple less substantial independent mentions can be cited to establish notability?
  3. evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability?
    I'm confused ... perhaps our Qs and As are out of synch.
  4. trivial coverage for these purposes means coverage such as (for example) newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories?
    You would add? That's just your subjective view, correct?
  5. Institutes are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and information about the Institute and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources?
    Do you mean to say that you can't simply answer "yes" to that question?
  6. Institutes activities that are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the Institute's local area.
    And then it would be indicia of notablity, correct?
  7. the Institute's major achievements, or other factors specific to the Institute, may be considered?
    Do you mean to suggest that you won't consider the Institute's major achievements if they are not covered by third parties?

--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop yelling. I'm puzzled. You moved my text. And then you yell at me? You're the one who started moving another editors' text. It makes sense for your to reply here, with your answers directly below my questions. Moving my text, and then failing to respond below my questions, renders the discourse gibberish to anyone seeking to follow it. Please stop moving/crossing out my edits. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your text once. When you objected to its move I did not persist. You have moved my text back here twice, in spite of the fact that you knew that I objected to this discussion being here even before the first move. I have taken care to ensure that it is clear which of my answers relate to which questions, and see no need for refactoring. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Custom on Wikipedia is that, until a separate institute garners sufficient history and notability to support its own article, we merge to the appropriate article within their University (otherwise we'd be buried under articles about various departments, institutes, centers, and other administrative subdivisions inside Universities). I don't think this institute is quite there yet, but it might well in time. RayTalk 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a distinctive institute, with enough references, and it is hardly surprising that the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position are on the advisory board. The general rule of merging gives an absurd result here. (And this is the first time I saw an article nominated based on what was on the talk page). Just as a general matter, my view of Wikipedia's cultural bias is that we have a tendency towards science and against religion here, and therefore should if necessary go a little further than usual to make sure we do not exclude articles on religion, especially on organizations and people working to show the compatibility of religion and science. I have seen too many articles nominated for deletion on the very few scientists with creationist or even religion-compatible views and on their publications and organizations to feel that all this is objective. Similarly for the very few serious scientists who support the existence of psi, or UFOs, or oppose the standard theory of global warming. It almost looks as if we want to pretend they don't exist. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the most eminent scientists in the UK with sympathies towards their position" (even were this substantiated) would appear to be a largely self-selecting criteria -- so does not seem to add to notability -- particularly as this is only represents a tiny (and probably not the most "eminent") proportion of the membership of the Royal Society.
  2. Listing a single reference that received prominent discussion on article talk is not basing the nomination "on what was on the talk page".
  3. Basing an article on self-published/trivial coverage is not "go[ing] a little further than usual", it is throwing the notability guidelines into the dustbin.
  4. Your personal inability to WP:AGF is not a basis for keeping an article. Kindly discuss the merits of the coverage, rather than your perceptions of biases and motivations. And I would point out that I have made substantial contributions to articles on a large number of creationist and compatibilist scientists, other individuals and organisations.
[belatedly HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Just hours ago you personally attacked DGG, substituting your personal subjective view for defamatory "fact", and wrote on Wikipedia for all the world to see: "DGG is notoriously radically inclusionist". You now turn around here--presumably straight-faced--and accuse him of a "personal inability to WP:AGF". This strikes me as perhaps a fair entry into the competition for the poster child of projection. Perhaps we would have a better conversation if we were to keep our civility at a high level, and avoid histrionics.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's pronounced bias towards inclusionism (which I commented upon in article talk in response to NBeale's claim that DGG's views are in some way conclusive) is evident in his above statement (as well as a large number of statements elsewhere). It is hardly a violation of WP:AGF to take notice of this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say you view someone as "notorious" ("ill-famed: known widely and usually unfavorably") is ugly. To state it as fact is defamatory. An editor was indef blocked this week for calling an al-Quaeda member evil. I would suggest that DGG deserves better from you than defamatory statements, which are direct violations of Wikipedia guidelines. But I expect you're aware of this, and are just wikilawyering, so let's get back on topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're complaining about my (since striken) use of the word "notorious", on another page. Certainly an issue worthy of a lengthy thread on an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Keep and (given the 9 straight keep votes, above and below) Snow Keep. Per DGG's well-stated comments, directly above. Though quite frankly, were this a science article with this level of multiple third-party coverage, impact within its sphere, non-trivial coverage (as that phrase is used in the guidance), etc., I would have precisely the same view. I'll no doubt have further comments after the nom replies to my queries, that now await him within the green bar above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. There are sufficient refs that are verifiable; non-trivial/incidental (as those phrases are clarified in the guidance -- such as newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories), reliable, and independent secondary sources. In addition, as the guidance suggests that we can also -- in instances where the refs are otherwise lacking -- consider notable and demonstrable effects on education, that if the depth of coverage is not substantial we can consider the existence of multiple independent sources to establish notability, that we can consider the fact that sources are national or international rather than only regional, that institutes are usually notable if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and that the Institute's major achievements and other factors specific to the Institute may be considered, that under each of these criteria (let alone all together) the Institute is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly with your reasoning on the merits of this case, but keep in mind that AfD contributions are not votes, and it is against guidelines to count them or promote thinking of them as votes. Tb (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lack of extensive coverage in any one external reliable source is an issue, as Hrafn has pointed out, but I feel that this lack is compensated for by the number of mentions the institute gets. Each one in itself is pretty trivial, and many of them appear to be self-generated, but the quantity of separate references is adequate. However, that does not give licence for the article to be puffed up with lots of notability-boosting comments from the Faraday Institute's own publicity material. Keep it, but keep it brief. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any institute at a world top 10 university with a Nobel Laureate on its advisory board and a whole page article in Science giving a rave review to one of its "end products" would be a clear keep for me: masses of GHits and mentions in most of the major UK news media make this clearer. In fact this institute is well known to anyone active in science and religion in the UK, and has a significant international profile, many of us are "Associates" (including me)- it even gets 136 hits on richarddawkins.net. NBeale (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that by declaring his connexion here he has ensured compliance with COI. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • I agree with Duncan. As the guidance instructs us: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.... Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.... in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view,... underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This passes notability per DGG. Martin451 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage [62], clearly notable. Artw (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have multiple WP:RS news cites, easily satisfying basic criteria for organizations. However I do agree that there is a lot of self-referencing in the article that should be trimmed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, Artw and Shawn in Montreal. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, I want to disclose that I came to this discussion because of a message at my talk by another editor supporting keep. However, I consider it appropriate, because I have made edits removing links on other pages to this page. And I'm disappointed to see the personal attacks that have attended parts of the discussion of this page. Having said all that, there is no reason to think the page fails notability (and I'm not sold on the merge idea). The correct course of action is to delete any material within the page that is promotional (or to label it as a direct quote attributed to the source), to remove any POV sources that are used inappropriately, and to add reliably sourced criticisms of the Institute. Any editors who are affiliated with the Institute should refrain from editing the page in a COI way, and should be brought to an appropriate noticeboard if they do not cooperate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a highly respected research institution whose findings are widely quoted in academic papers and discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. "Highly respected?" I wouldn't go that far. But that doesn't affect my position about keeping. Or about the need to edit it for NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's an internationally known research institution, active in publishing, scholarship, and so forth. The article could use some improvement and depth, but it's an easy keep. Tb (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To save other editors who have yet to comment a waste of their time, given the consensus of all other than the nom here, perhaps the nom may wish as a public service to withdraw his nomination in deference to consensus of his fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if he wanted it blanked, I would not object--fwiw, I have now done 9027 deletions., #123rd among admins. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that no independent coverage has been turned up that isn't "plainly trivial", the basis for the nomination remains sound. That a large number of editors have seen fit to WP:IAR & ignore the guidelines and/or the paucity of coverage, is not a good reason to withdraw the nomination. I therefore reaffirm nomination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, too much to ask, I expect. For that I apologize. Perhaps some kind soul with sympathy for peoples' time who value the consensus of the community more will drop by, note the 11 editors who have a different view, and snow keep this.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 25 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Roberts

[edit]
Janice Roberts (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 to fail WP:BIO. The original WP:AUTO author had her autobiography speedied several times and she, and her sockpuppets, was eventually blocked (she has since continued editing the article under mutiple IPs). Before this happened, however, her last submission seemed to me to be an acceptable article, but I failed to locate reliable sources for various assertions of notability in the article (perhaps this is a reflection on my google-fu), leaving one which no longer passed WP:BIO. The prod was removed by an IP, presumably Janice, so now I'm here: it's time for this to be expunged. Josh Parris 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to have received any significant independent coverage. Bongomatic 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteKeep (see below) She was a senior VP at 3com, at one point with responsibility for managing the Palm division [63]. She gets quoted variously in the press, as is common for such high level executives [64] (one of many), and was interviewed by CNet back in 1999 [65]. She was at one point managing director of the Mayfield Fund [66], managing about $2.3 billion dollars [67]. I think we can establish her importance, but we are having difficulty finding sufficient sourcing information to do a full-length bio, hence notability is a question. I'm of the feeling that, in this case, the subject is unquestionably prominent and a significant player in Silicon Valley venture capital, and the sources probably do exist that do not turn up easily under a quick google search (I had to do tricks with Google to get articles about her and not other people of the same name, but my contortions could easily have thrown out a lot of good articles along with the bad ones). RayTalk 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for that. That does put a fairly different color on it, and my estimate of her significance is dropped quite a bit. I'm changing to a weak delete. RayTalk 05:07, 24 November 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.

Wrong venue. Take this to MFD if needed. Triplestop x3 03:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basementkids

[edit]
User:Basementkids (edit | [[Talk:User:Basementkids|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 comedy group. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 02:55, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic use in cows

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

Context-free, non-neutral essay. Would require a complete rewrite to be acceptable. Salvageable data is redundant to material in antibiotic resistance. Danger (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Danger as to the current status of the article. However a quick google and cab abstracts search suggests that agricultural antibiotic use is under-represented in wikipedia, with only a small paragraph in cattle feed & a mention in antibiotic resistance (plus a few odds and sodds elsewhere such as manure). A google search seems to indicate that antibiotic use is politically sensitive, and as it stands wikipedia is not a good place to glean actual facts on the matter. I would suggest the creation of a broader article such as 'antibiotic use in animal production', covering matters such as relationship between feed and need for ab's, withholding periods and risks. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the topic is notable and deserves more coverage. I think, however, that it is better for the encyclopedia to have no devoted article than a strongly biased stub. --Danger (talk) 03:00, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Latvian relations

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

only 3 state visits in 18 years of diplomatic relations. the bilateral agreements are standard for fellow EU members. this relationship lacks any significant third party coverage [68]. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. No reliable, third-party sources discussing these countries' relations in any depth are cited in the article, and couldn't come up with any on my own. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime TC 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Can't deal with this crap anymore...... Yilloslime TC 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. How was I to find all the third party references and you were not able to? The tools I have available are the same as yours. I have Google and human brain and fingers to type. We are in the the same field in the sciences. I suspect you vote before you perform the research. You can't look at the first page of the 10K Google results and give up. You have to refine the search. I looked at the information at the consulate websites then took the names of the visiting dignitary and searched for their name and the country they they were visiting in Google News. That gave me the exact reference for that state trip. It is not impossible work, but it is work. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. \//\ - 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced and notable. The nominator is just looking at the current state of the article instead of the current state of information on the relationship. We are voting on the topic, not the state of the article as it is now. There are more than 3 state visits according to that magic thing called Google. You just have to do a search and look through the results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in the article as it currently stands. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relationship between the two nations is notable, they having made agreements with each other, and had their leaders meet on multiple occasions. All of these events would've gotten news coverage in both countries and perhaps elsewhere. News coverage equals notability. "Greece made an agreement with Latvian over..." and then an article about the two nations agreement. Anyone doubt such coverage exist, and that it meets the suggested guidelines for notability? Dream Focus 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per absolutely stellar work improving this article by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Several bilateral agreements, numerous state visits covered by third party sources. Notability easily established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article subjects ought to have been covered in depth, not in a series of trivial news items Richard Arthur Norton happened to have found while googling. No, independent sources actually about "Greek-Latvian relations" do not exist, much as some might like to pretend they do. - Biruitorul Talk 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Wikipedia rule demands that the references refer exactly to the phrase "Greek-Latvian relations". Articles are about the concepts not the words, if it were about the word, we would be a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. We use sources for the Iraq War that call it "Occupation of Iraq" and "The Second Gulf War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as well as the "Iraqi insurgency" and a handful of other synonyms. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Wikipedia rule requires that the facts come from a single source. If an article has 10 facts, they can come from 10 sources, or come from 1 source. Mathematically, both methods have the same depth of coverage, which would be 10 facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient independent sources to establish noteability. Its good to have a mix including primary sources for this sort of article so we can offer more complete information to our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 30 November 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 A7) by Plastikspork. NAC. Cliff smith talk 07:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPGRADE COMPLETE!!

[edit]
UPGRADE COMPLETE!! (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 flash game. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:47, 24 November 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) 03:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markstay Warren Challenge the Champ Sled-Dog Race

[edit]
Markstay Warren Challenge the Champ Sled-Dog Race (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 verifiable, maybe not notable. No secondary sources given, no Google News hits. Nothing of consequence was found via Google web search. Prod was removed by author with an edit summary of "Independant sources: sleddogcentral.com, mushing.com, markstay-warren.com, isdra.com. Google News, no hits due to previous staff being computer illiterate. News on all Ontario TV stations, plus newspa" (and then the edit summary ran out of characters, I presume) - sleddogcentral.com has a table of 2007 results which serves to verify the competition's existence, but little more. No results for 2008 or 2009. Markstay-Warren.com has a barren external link without any information whatsoever beyond 2009 date and location. Mushing.com has some information that reads like press releases, not an independent source. On Isdra.com I found a few lines written by the organizer, nothing independent. Newspapers should probably have been found via Google News. Huon (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete. Nothing to suggest notability- could well fail all three of the key content policies- WP:V, WP:N and WP:OR. If something can be found to verify more than the mere existence of this event, I wouldn't oppose a merge to a relevant article but I'm not holding my breath frankly. HJMitchell You rang? 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 24 November 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinf

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

here is no evidence of notability for this software. References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all! Reference 4 is simply an WP:OR assertion. Reference 1 is a promotional message in a newsgroup. There is no coverage in reliable sources demonstrated. Miami33139 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, would the nominator care to explain why he nominates this article once more, when his last nomination less than a year ago failed. The question is -- WP:NOTAGAIN and why the already overburdened AfD circuit should be strained once again. Second, it is a so-called "half-truth" that "References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all!" - the references do contain the text string "FreeAmp", and Zinf is a continuation of FreeAmp, as clearly explained in the article, and easily verified in a basic search. Third, to those who "cannot find coverage", I will say:
    • The Linux cookbook: tips and techniques for everyday use By Michael Stutz [70] p475 picks seven of "the better" music players, and includes Zinf.
    • UNIX: the complete reference By Kenneth H. Rosen, Douglas A. Host p1051 - Free preview is limited, I cannot assess if it is in-depth mention, but it is more than passing mention.
    • A PhD thesis on Open Source Software Development [71] examines three cases, amongst them Zinf, because it has "an innovative way of keeping track of ones music collection"
    • FreeAmp was used in a test-setup in MSc. project on Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice [72]
    • FreeAmp and Zinf were likewise used in a MSc project Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio [73]
    • ZInf is also used in this thesis ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO [74]
    • FreeAmp was picked for a streaming experiment testing of a prototype of sorts in THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - Proceedings of EUNICE, 2000 - [75]
    • Add to this that Gsearch Zinf FreeAmp [76] returns about 41k hits, indicative that it has some popularity, supportbase, general interest, ... or whatever.
Keeping a short article on this software seem to be perfectly legit for an encyclopedia. The basic problem is that it takes a few minutes or less to nominate an article for deletion, about the same or shorter not to find any sources, and disproportionately more time to challenge it Power.corrupts (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last nomination did not provide any new sources, just WP:ILIKEIT claims. I copied the deletion rationale here, from another AfD contributor there, actually. That is JLL's response. Your basic accusation here is that I did not examine and look for references. I have looked for references, and I found them lacking. You found more references.
Let's examine your references.
      • Linux Cookbook, one sentence does not confer notability
      • Unix Complete Reference, a passing mention of one paragraph in an entire chapter of one paragraph descriptions of available software. Appearing in a list of things does not confer notability.
      • Open Source Software Development Edwards.dk Thesis - does not confer notability, millions of theses are written each year, typically read by a dozen people at best. The Zinf specific information consists of how it was installed on Linux compared to the ease of use of the installation on Windows. Even if this was a mainstream book, this would not be a significant mention.
      • Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice - does not confer notability. This is another thesis. And these sources say "freeamp was used" in the footnotes. That's it.
      • Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio. - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf includes the sentence "Zinf is an audio player for Linux and Win32" and one screenshot.
      • ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf are three sentences that says Zinf is an audio player. Zinf is a continuation of Freeamp. Zinf was able to decode an IP stream in real time, plus the download link. That's it.
      • THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - "Windows based RTP aware mp3 players, such as freeamp", plus the download link is the entirety of this mention.
What is clear here is that of these seven references you have provided is that none of them is about Zinf. Four of them are theses, which might make good reliable sources if they actually said anything about the product. They DO NOT. The other academic reference sounds promising too, except freeamp is not even the subject of the single sentence in which it appears in that source. The two books contain one sentence and one paragraph respectively. All of these references are why Notability requires significant sources about the subject. You have provided a list of trivial mentions in sources about other things.
I do agree with you that finding references and writing an article about them is hard work. That is why the edit page for a new article says in bold that an article not based on references will be quickly deleted. That sucks for the author, but that is the way it is. Miami33139 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linux Cookbook - being picked as one of the seven best players is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Devoting 1/3 of a PhD thesis to studying the evolution of Zinf is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Are you really sure that "millions" of PhD theses are produced every year? But our disagreement here is at the heart of WP:N, precisely because it is vague and subjective, for what "significant coverage" anyway. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis does not provide 1/3rd of it's coverage to Zinf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I click on the link at the top of the AFD for Google Books, and find over 700 results. Some of them are about this software. iPod and iTunes is the book at the top, giving it notable coverage. Of course, for the software to be mentioned at all in so many books, it must be notable(worthy of noting). Dream Focus 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 24 November 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Ability

[edit]
Permanent Ability (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 band which doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Also, if you look at the history, it appears as though this was created by Brian Lanese, the main vocalist, which is a major no no. The links go to local publications or MySpace. Basically a locally successful rock band. Not enough for our purposes User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does it have two notable members?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Steve Andino is a member of the band who used to be in a band called Tourniquet, who has an article. However, he and only one other former member of that band have articles. And he hasn't done anything else to make him notable (there are 0 references in his article). As for the other linked member, Brian Lanese, its similar to Steve except Brian wasn't in any notable bands. I actually put Brian's article up for deletion for similar reasons as this one. My main issues are that the band itself isn't notable and its a self-written article with next to 0 independent sourcing. I don't think Steve's presence makes the band notable enough. There just isn't enough else there. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if it is NN, it should be deleted. As to the COI, I note that the COI guideline instructs us "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to.... However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community."--Epeefleche (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Permanent Ability's page should NOT be deleted due to the notable accomplishments, regardless if they are an indie local band...google the band. These guys are on their way, and a Wikipedia page has to start somewhere. :Question. Why is it such a huge deal if the page stays? It's harming who? If its such an outrage, help make the page more wiki friendly!

There's no easy way to explain and define that, but this isn't the place to take it up. This discussion should relate as closely to Wikipedia guidelines and philosophy as much as possible. Speaking of sticking to deletion, could you please not delete the AfD discussion link section from your article? Pretty please? Such things tend to upset admins-- you should focus on your article; don't put yourself in danger at the same time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CMP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Withdrawn per Gongshow's cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hope

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

Claims notability with multiple albums. However, I have been unable to find any significant coverage in third-party sources beyond this review in Deseret News back in the band's earlier days. The only other hits on GNews simply stated that they'd be playing somewhere, or were false positives. Last AFD kept because of two "keep" !votes, one of which was a WP:PERNOM and the other of which failed to address the lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to pass criteron 5 of WP:BAND: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." This band has released three albums on Metal Blade Records. Also, here are two articles at Blabbermouth that provide coverage for the band. [77][78] These, combined with the above Deseret News article, satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Lastly, two of the band's albums have appeared on CMJ's Metal albums chart. [79][80]. While I wouldn't call this fact "significant coverage", it helps support my belief (given that criteria 1 and 5 appear to be met) that the band is notable.  Gongshow Talk 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and upon reading them more thoroughly you're correct that the Blabbermouth pieces are primary sources. Instead, I'll offer these [81][82] (including another album review). Both articles are short, but I think each has enough information to go beyond "trivial" mentions.  Gongshow Talk 03:51, 24 November 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. No arguments to keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'

[edit]
John O'Connor aka. 'Pal' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete: per WP:CRUFT, WP:NOTABLE. Hard to believe the page has been around this long without challenge. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind explaining how 'cruft' and 'notable' apply? I'm not sure if you're asserting the article writer (me!) is a big fan of O'Connor, or if the sourcing isn't reliable? Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
out of interest, what's the 1E - presumably dying? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privatemusings: Sorry if my language was too harsh. I probably should have just stuck with lack of notability. The guy was not notable. Your sourcing is not the question but yeah the page does read kind of like a misguided tribute, which would be OK in some other venue. Maybe I am just the only one who bothered to mention it. I have no ill will towards the late Mr O'Connor, or "Pal", but the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which is why I created this AFD, which you haven't actually contested. (I don't know what 1E is either.) Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Passes part of WP:BIO in that he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which it has, but the article could also be interpreted as failing WP:BIO1E. 1E deals with separate articles on events and people associated with them, but the refs in this case are mostly about the event of his death and the effects it had, which was really his main source of notability. I think it's pretty borederline when it comes to the 1E (which means "one event", by the way), but I'm going to have to say delete. Sorry. Quite an interesting article, tho, if it makes you feel any better, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:18, 28 November 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) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Association of Anti-Aging Medicine

[edit]
Serbian Association of Anti-Aging Medicine (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 subject of this article is a Serbian non-profit organization that seemingly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Two external links are provided in the article; one appears to be their official website, while the other is that of the affiliated World Society of Anti-Aging Medicine, which does not itself have a Wikipedia article, so far as I can tell. These links do not really establish notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I added their actual Serbian name: Srpske asocijacije za Anti-aging medicinu to the article, & checked it in Google & G Scholar--and found nothing relevant to notability In the circumstances, I think that's enough of a check DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 24 November 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 in light of improvements and heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Billcock

[edit]
Jill Billcock (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. this article has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced. hardly any third party coverage.gnews LibStar (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my reason for nomination is failing the significant coverage test. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice then that Phil Bridger added sources. passes WP:ANYBIO. Good job Phil!
And with respects Libstar, the GNG does not mandate lots-of-sources. It does not mandate 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 pieces of coverage. RS is RS, and searches find her being written of since at least 2001. It does not matter that she does not have hundreds of articles written about her elsewhere, as long as what IS written allows her to meet our guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
quality of sources is more important than quantity. although I'm sure you know that as well :) LibStar (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... as you clearly stated your concern that the article "has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced". I found Phil's providing of Los Angeles Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Sunday Times as showing he shares that same concern for quality of sources, and was willing to add them when this AFD forced cleanup. The assertions of being a multi-award winner have now been properly sourced. Per Bio's basic criteria, depth of coverage is required only if notability is dependent on that coverage. Her notability is through her meeting WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"... and such has been confirmed in reliable quality sources. Kudos to Phil! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my point is regarding the 4 years, if it existed for 4 months I would not have nominated on it. sometimes (not always) the reason for poorly referenced articles that have existed for many years is that there exists little coverage of the subject. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thoughts, but per WP:IMPROVE, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:NOEFFORT, that no one's been working on it is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. I am glad that Phil Bridger dealt with the sourcing concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Allan

[edit]
Raymond Allan (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 author of a single fiction book for teens. No evidence of coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 24 November 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 G3) by Chamal N. NAC. Cliff smith talk 07:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JimJimster

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

⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:29, 24 November 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) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmux

[edit]
Tmux (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 non-notable and unsourced software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Graphics Institute

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

Self-advertisement by obscure company; what few references we get are tangential to a conference it sponsors. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY and meets WP:V. Their conference attracts speakers like Michael Eisner, Al Gore, and Marissa Mayer which should be enough to meet WP:N and it is much larger than MIX_(Microsoft). Their large number of current books published by Wiley_Publishing also meets WP:N. Edward Dewey 05:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • response - Notability is not inherited; the company does not become notable because its staff may be notable; far less because its staff had books published by a notable publisher. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" notability by being a customer or patron of a notable person. Hiring a notable speaker does not make me or my event, be it conference or bar mitzvah, notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • response - The organization is notable at face value. They host an annual event that attracts more than 9,000 people and has been running for many years - unlike a one-time bar mitzvah. Even without the speakers, the event is notable. You don't just call Google and hire their execs or Apple board members to speak like you do a DJ at a bar mitzvah, so I think the comparison is off-base. The idea that all these companies come together to support an event shows notability for the event, as does the size and the history. They also publish books - the links show that they have their own imprint jointly published with Wiley and distributed globally, and the organization is listed as the author of the books. So they are a publisher and author with multiple book titles that are distributed globally, not just a company that happens to have a few employees as authors. Recently updated links show that they create books that are being used by schools around the world. You could even return to your alma-matter's library and find their books: AGI Photoshop book at UW library and AGI Dreamweaver book at UW library. The entry could use some minor clean-up, but keeping it is the right thing to do as it meets WP:N on its own and clearly WP:V. In the spirit of WP:HEY I encourage you to take another look at the entry with its updates. Edward Dewey 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Dewey (talk • contribs)
Correction: Those books are in the library of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; I am an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (and briefly attended the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay). My only connection to the entity in Madison is through all of my Union brothers and sisters (AFSCME Locals 2412 and 171) who work there. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep An organization that writes or publishes a number of standard books in its field can become notable by doing so. It is their activities that make organizations (and people) notable. I think they have that role for Adobe software. It would be nice to have some better references, though, such as 3rd party reviews of the books that specifically talk about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Dewey. Just enough indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 28 November 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) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big data

[edit]
Big data (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. "Big" is an adjective that can be combined with many words; there is nothing novel or notable about its use with "data" - indeed, data is more likely to be described as "large" (Google gives more than 10 times as many hits for "large data" over "big data"). Even "large data" is merely a dictionary term; for an article on the particular difficulties that large data presents, the article Computer data processing might be a good place to start. I42 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if someone were to create a combined entry on big/large data. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - can't see any reliable sources here. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Nature is a reliable source? There is an entire issue of Nature dedicated to the subject. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, nature is a reliable source, but the nature reference somehow doesn't really fit in the article. is big data a neologism or a dictionary definition? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like just a neologism. The only provided reference, the Nature article, doesn't actually even mention the term "big data", instead talking about big data sets. JIP | Talk 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "big data" is increasingly used in discussions about scientific research and web platforms. Perhaps the problem is that its notability isn't apparent from this very short stub. Neilfws (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 24 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GraphLogic

[edit]
GraphLogic (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 tech business or web content. Contested proposed deletion.

  • Obvious advertising making grand but vague claims, to the point of patent nonsense: The platform is a graphical realization of a Turing-complete programming language coupled with a patented run-time environment that together deliver a fully-realized Software as a Service Web 2.0 application development platform designed for cloud computing.
  • All of these "... as a service" businesses are really only web sites, and need to meet the web content notability guidelines as well as the organizational guidelines.
  • Google News Archive yields only local newspaper stories and a few court cases they were involved in.

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Desktop

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

unimportant web product sourced to self-published sources and press release reprints. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like a user left on your talk page, what is "self-published sources" and who are you to deem something "unimportant". This seems like an irresponsible AfD to me. You initially added a PROD (deleting such pages after 7 days if no objections are raised), then waited 2 days, then added an AfD. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
only edit from this IP
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to closing Administrator: This account has only been used for modifying AfD discussions. See user's contributions. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:46, 27 November 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) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Henshaw

[edit]
Steve Henshaw (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 so much as a biography as a clumsy advertisement for the subject's company, which itself is not notable as per WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 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 Will Smith#Personal life. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Smith

[edit]
Trey 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)

Actor with only a couple of minor appearances that don't meet WP:ENT, and a high-school athlete who doesn't meet WP:ATH. Gets mentioned in sources because of his father, Will Smith, but per WP:NOTINHERITED that isn't enough to make him notable in his own right. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheneckentaenze

[edit]
Scheneckentaenze (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 bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of dogwood festivals

[edit]
List of dogwood festivals (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 as a non-notable and indiscriminate list. WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix |  Talk  00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment most of these link to city articles which do not mention the festival, or which have no references supporting the festival. the articles on festivals are stubs, with little or no references. I think its established that dogwood blooming is a notable time for festivals in the regions they grow, but i dont see this article as being substantial enough yet. if someone wants to try to rescue it, i think its an inherently acceptable idea, but only if these festivals can be shown as notable. as it stands, its not a list of notable events. I disagree with the nominator that its indiscriminate, its actually very precisely discriminate, and that is necessary but not sufficient for a list. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This had been called Dogwood Festival until someone thought it would be a good idea to add the dreaded "L-word". They might as well have nominated it at the same time. The name change was more accurately descriptive of the article, but it's kind of like putting a "kick me" sign on your own back. However, it strikes me that, with only a little bit of context, this would be more than simply a list of dogwood festivals. It's not entirely indiscriminate, but it lacks the background for explaining why certain communities celebrate the arrival of spring with a festival tied to dogwood trees (or for that matter, why many municipalities plant the trees to beautify their streets). I think it's an easy fix, I'll see what I can do. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the article can be modified per mandsford.i hadnt caught the name change, which does cause most of the problem. i had trouble finding info on the history of dogwood festivals, but i probably didnt try hard enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The topic of dogwood festivals is notable, [86] so if this is all we have for now, we should keep it.--PinkBull 23:39, 29 November 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 WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese_of_Aberdeen

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

redundancy

I don't know if I've done this correctly. I'm going through the 'old diocese articles, and I came across this one. It seems to me like it is a POV fork for the two diocese articles, one with the COE and one with the Catholic dioceses, both successor dioceses claiming a connection to the ancient one. Do we really need this article? From what I can see, the information contained has been copied and pasted into both the current COE diocese and the RC diocese. Unlike most of the other ancient diocese articles, this diocese continues to exist. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Historic District

[edit]
New Market Historic District (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 DAB page is unnecessary since all but one list entry are redlinks. The "see also" is fine, but could at worst be hatnoted on the remaining blue link, and in any case it is unlikely that someone would arrive at this page by accident. I propose the DAB page is deleted and either redirected to the existing blue link (New Market Historic District (New Market, Maryland)) or that link is then moved into its place. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:Keep: Clearly, there's a distinction between other "New Market Historic Districts." It's obvious somebody has been planning to write articles for the other three, or they're leaving room for somebody else to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can well see the points there, except perhaps that really it's not a DAB, but a list (and I am not trying to argue that). There's also New Market (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) which is not an historic district but is on the NRHP (I guess it's a landmark or something else other than a district). This whole DAB is very much a side concern for me, as I am more concerned to merge the DAB articles New Market and Newmarket, and considering those well put arguments, I beg to withdraw my proposal to delete. Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 24 November 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_November_24&oldid=1142643492"