Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 14

< 13 August	15 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deletion -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Chuck Easttom

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

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put it up for speedy deletion although I cannot tell if the new article is substantially different to the previous version. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as requested by the author. —Soap— 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian W. Chandler

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

Still not anywhere near being notable. See previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler. The title of this article is different because the old title, and many variants thereof, is salted. I would have simply deleted the article directly as a recreation of AfD'd material, but this new version is significantly different from the old and I could be seen as having a conflict of interest since I've been cleaning up Sonichu-related vandalism for a while now. If kept, I see this article turning into a coatrack documenting all of the embarrassing things Chandler has done, with the biographical information at the beginning used as just an excuse to justify the article's existence. If deleted, it would become near-impossible for anyone to justify recreating the article yet again. —Soap— 23:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as article creator. I have no intentions of embarrassing Chandler by creating this article, and if it is to be deleted and my comment ingored, I only ask that this article name is not salted just because of the abuse people from 4chan or ED or whatever cause him. Getting over the issues presented by Soap, the article can have a fighting chance, I just need the time to ensure it. The Thunderkitty (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Article creator has no previous edits and is most likely a troll here to wreak more havoc on Chris. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am working on another article relating to a band called Crush 40. Another thing is that if you take a look at the ED variation of the article, they have talked about him so much that it needed a subpage navigation template due to the limitation of the article size, and Cogsdev while writing in the view of a troll, has over 1,000 articles relating to Chris. If the community of Wikipedia wasn't so taboo to the stunts 4chan or ED has done, this article would more than likely be a featured article, I can assure you of that fact. The Thunderkitty (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change other people's votes. Or anything else they write on a discussion page, for that matter. —Soap— 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being I am the only person making substantual edits, I have requested speedy deletion and blanked the article as a courtesy. The Thunderkitty (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax Tonywalton ^Talk 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Hotspurs

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

Appears to be a joke article. Mostly a team listing of nobodies like this:

"Tony Gammall #4 - Winner of the 2009 Darren Anderton appreciation award, Tony is set to scoop the award for the second year running. His speach in an earlier win over Dogs was used in the movie Any Given Sunday by Al Pacino...."

Page created by a single editor who has not contributed to anything else. Team fails the google test. No sources. Some BLP violations. If this is a real team they are unlikely to meet notability standards. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Doesn't even specify the sport, although I guess it doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that the Astro League is soccer. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO: casting Dan Akroyd, Tom Cruise and "The guy who plays Alan" together in a sports movie. Speedy. East of Borschov 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Joe Cocker's version charted which is good enough for me. It'd help if the article said that, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Leave Your Hat On

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

Unsourced WP:OR. No non-trivial sources found, only one sentence mentions. The fact that multiple artists recorded it means nothing if nobody's written about it in any sort of detail. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Allen

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

This person doesn't appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in WP:BIO and WP:WINEMAKER. Seems to have local coverage only. Competition seems to be a non-notable event with local entries rather than international. This seems like a memorial article; see the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Prod was removed by the author without explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. The PROD clearly should have been respected, there's no attempt at meeting WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete possibly re-writeable as an article on the subjects vineyard. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless better sources are provided. I checked the links given. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be nothing redeeming about this article. Copyvio of awful POV writing on an insufficiently notable subject. Unless actual decent sources appear there is no cause to keep. MURGH ^talk 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. would have been merge but ther eis no content tio merge na dits not a reasonable redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Fishburne: An A-List Daughter Makes her XXX Debut

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, no useful content, more than sufficiently covered in Montana Fishburne Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Montana Fishburne. Epbr123 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I have put the main article up for deletion. Until the film wins some kind of award or gains significant coverage, it fails WP:GNG at this time. Whose Your Guy (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Montana Fishburne. Additionally, the above user knows nothing about WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know more than you think I do. I have a different philosophy on such things. Additionally, I am not going to respond directly to anymore of your comments in this, or any other, AFD. Thank you and have a nice day. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla (software)

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

This non-notable corporation was recent restore from PROD after adding two reference.

Reference 1: Businesswire, is a press release. Reference 2: Tech Crunch, is actually just a reprint of a blogger who notes 10 companies who receive $18,000 in venture capital. I do not believe this is evidence of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Oklahoma

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

Unsourced listcruft. Can't possibly be sourced; seems to violate WP:SALAT as the songs have nothing in common besides mention of Oklahoma. Has existed for four years without a single source. Last AFD closed as no consensus without anyone even trying to address the sourcing problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This again... I don't really buy the "cruft" argument, as "cruft" in Wikipedia basically means "anything I don't like". The link you provide about stand-alone lists doesn't seem to disagree with the existence of this list, as it primarily concerns topics that are too specific or too general, and that does not appear to be the case here. (And, by the way, it's generally a good idea to actually label your links, as providing an alphabet soup of links doesn't add to your argument.) As for the sourcing, the correct way to handle it is to add sources. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you propose I'd get them, short of just using the Allmusic listing for each album on which each song appears? I see nothing that specifically discusses songs about Oklahoma. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you really need links to connect Oklahoma (song) with Oklahoma ? East of Borschov 23:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly can be sourced. Please consult the Oklahoma History Center. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is nobody sourcing it? Don't just expect the house to build itself, people. You were arguing for keep last time but doing absolutely bupkis to improve the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a song to the list. Please explain why you did not add a source. Perhaps you thought this was an unnecessary chore? Note that our policy does not require sourcing of every word and detail - this would be excessive. Commonsense and policy advise that we only add sources where the information is controversial or otherwise unclear. If you think that your entry did not require a source, then why should others? Please indicate the entries which require such work. For myself, my view is that the list could use more links from the song titles. I have improved the first entry in the list to illustrate. As for house-building, please see WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the well-articulated arguments in the prior AfD. Appropriate list matter.--Arxiloxos (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory capital

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

This non-notable neologism only reference to blog. Miami33139 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 04:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, scope_creep (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Artist-run space#San Francisco. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch Gallery

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this gallery. —fetch ·comms 20:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an advertisement. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not find significant independent coverage enough to meet GNG in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inadequate coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. VQuakr (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artist-run_space#San_Francisco, where I've already merged material. There are not enough sources (as yet) to validate an independent article, but per WP:NNC there is verification to substantiate inclusion in a general survey article. Ty 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tyrenius that Kitsch Gallery belongs in the general survey article, not an independent article. The independent article should be deleted. Warrenking (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When material is merged from one article to another, the original is left as a redirect to preserve GFDL. Also it makes the encyclopedia more useful to readers as anyone searching for the Kitsch Gallery will get redirected straight to the relevant section about it. Ty 00:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Tyrenius.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or merge - encyclopedic as another artist-run space do not delete...Modernist (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Allsop

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

No first team appearances, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Proposed deletion template was removed by the creator, whom has expanded, but he still fails to meet said criteria. A case of WP:TOOSOON no doubt, as he will play football at a professional level, and the reasonable article can always be restored once that happens. Esteffect (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth player who fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark-Hunters

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

Redirection has been suggested before, and prod and maintenance templates removed. In-universe topic without sources or structure. If not ripe for deletion, perhaps redirect to Dark-Hunter series. Either way, this has been around a long time, and is just a dumping ground for original research. JNW (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find reliable secondary sources to WP:verify notability of this concept. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by PeterSymonds as blatant hoax. Article was a copypaste of Cass City, Michigan with a couple words changed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Heights, Michigan

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

Most of the text is a derivative of Cass City, Michigan. Some text has been removed, and a few stats have been changed, but many are still identical to the ones in Cass City, Michigan. Searching does not give much, and there are a few problems: 1) a lot of new data on the community, but it is not listed by factfinder.census.gov (used as a reference). 2) Allegedly home to one of four elementary schools managed by Cass City Public Schools, but not according to official site. 3) a satellite map of the area shows no 1,370-households community in the southern part of Elkland Township and northern part of Novesta Township (except for Cass City). 4) "heights" is not mentioned even once Cass City Village Website. jonkerz ♠ 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenz Diener

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Contested A7. I can find no reliable sources (Google search parameters "-twitter -wikipedia -myspace -facebook -linkedin -twit -pipl -sourceforge -yahoo -google") to back up the claims of importance made in the first paragraph. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Google search?
Strong Keep Try googling 'halcy', you'll get much more, then. Do your research before putting articles up for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's still not a lot (Google search parameters "halcy" -twitter -myspace -youtube -facebook -linkedin -blog -blogspot -journal -whitepages) of reliable sources there that I could find. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint When will you start using valid links and not just fake wiki articles to back up your claims? LiteralKa (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you even know what a reliable source is, dude? BTW - I converted my redlinks to actual text so you could see what I used to weed out the UNreliable sources. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have serious issues with recognizing notability, don't you? LiteralKa (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the same can be said of you regarding reliable sources. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is new to me, news stories, biographies, and books aren't reliable! LiteralKa (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you guys noticed that the paragraph about his connection to the Hells Angels story is a fake, right? Neither the age (22 vs. 26) nor the place (Karlsruhe vs. Munich) matches. --84.160.54.65 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 84.160.54.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Literalka, there seems to be a lot on this person. 69.232.205.201 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.232.205.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find reliable sources either, and the Jamie Alexander and Jeffrey Bailey sources are nowhere to be found. We need to keep in mind that searching for someone's screen name and finding a lot of results is not an indication of that person's notability; rather, it is an indication of how active that person is on the Internet. It appears to me that Mr. Diener is notable for only one event, so the article should be deleted. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find a name in any of the "puppy" articles, so I've removed that as a BLP violation until someone can clarify. References 2 and 3 appear to be imaginary; I could not find mentions of the articles or authors. The claim of "computer scientist" as a freshman CS major seems to be an agressive claim. Removing that, there's absolutely nothing here. Kuru (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is satisfied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware this is a discussion, correct? Could you expand on why you feel there is any notability here? Kuru (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not yet mentioned in the article but he's had successes in the demoscene as well [10]. Lordgilman (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a forum? Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you could call Pouet a forum. However, the entries (and ratings!) are real and you can probably dig Lorenz's group's entries up on the demoscene party host's website. Lordgilman (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular on a forum" is not helpful. Reliable sources are what we're looking for. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my entire post! Lorenz isn't "popular on a forum," he did well at Breakpoint [11] a demoscene party big enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Please please please read up on this stuff or stay out of the discussion!Lordgilman (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't fault your efficiency in completely ignoring Pouët's main purpose. LiteralKa (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pouet is one of the most reliable demoscene websites, nearly every demo production is listed on there, with download/youtube links and information about their creators and any awards that they have won; and those are elaborately staged, kind of like the programming nerds' Oscars or the like. Assembly and other demo parties are huge deals in the video game industry. Headhunters for game companies go to those things looking for new talent. But that's getting a bit beside the point, and this is an absurd discussion regardless. (But amusing!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.212.100 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 UTC — 24.29.212.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Diener's impact on Western imageboard culture cannot be overstated; it's unfortunate that this isn't better documented in traditional media, but that's to be expected, given 2channel's emphasis on anonymity. In addition to this, he is well known in the demoscene, as per Lordgilman's comment. Cairnarvon (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Can you point to any reliable sources that support this? I'd love to simply take your word for it, but it's not something we can do here. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attention, everybody: What the flying fuck? Halcy (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) [L. Diener][reply]

You... sockpuppet!! (Kidding.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.212.100 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 UTC — 24.29.212.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - After looking around a bit more, the editor who added most of the bio seems to be deliberately faking references and adding hoax material. He has admitted to "playing" here and here. The subject denies the accomplishments falsely attributed to him here and here. I've asked "Literalka" to provide more details previously, and he has apparently declined. Since this is a BLP, I've trimmed the article back to sourced information, which leaves little. There appears to be offline coordination; I've added the appropriate tag to this discussion. Kuru (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to point out that I did not write "most of the bio", as the above editor falsely claims. LiteralKa (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would also like to point out the fact that the above argument is riddled with Original Research, just because the subject "denies" the claims does not make it fact. I would assume good faith before resorting to such underhanded tactics. LiteralKa (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Here is your contribution at the start of this AFD. I am patiently waiting for you to support your additions as requested several times. My assumption of good faith is in not immediately and indefinitely blocking your account for intentionally adding hoax material to a biography of a living person. Now would be a good time to do that. Kuru (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because here is the actual bio being added. LiteralKa (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, calling it a "hoax" is not assuming good faith. Oh, and "several times" being once. While I was banned. LiteralKa (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with literalka and the other comments about good faith. It is hard to find writing on the Anonymous BBS scene because, well, everyone wants to be anonymous.68.50.12.75 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And most people here aer anonymous as well, so what's your point? The problem with "underground" stuff is that they don't get the significant coverage that other mainstreamers do. In this particular case, the subject himself !voted delete which means he expressly doesn't want an article here. And as far as calling something a hoax bad faith, wasn't the evidence clear that false information was being applied to the article? Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try to compare anonymity here to anonymity on an imageboard. LiteralKa (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And the pictures. Although I must say, he's looking sharp these days. (LiteralKa, you're so busted.) humblefool® 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed I will be "busted" for hurting someone's wikifeelings, no doubt. LiteralKa (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CC license[12] for images only cover the images that are actually IN the Commons? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the bottom of his website (nice fact checking). LiteralKa (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I'm an inclusionist by nature, but this article fails WP:BIO and WP:ORG. I can't seem to find any verifiable source which defines how successful his site is, which would suggest if its not successful, then notability falls back onto him, and as he is a student, will fail WP:BIO. The name Tanasinn was a 4Chan meme, which I think started a 2-3 years ago, so provides more ghits than would otherwise be attributed to the Tanasinn site. scope_creep (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tanasinn has nothing at all to do with 4chan. LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So just a straight forward black and white argument, that Tanasinn has nothing to do with 4chan. Do a search linking 4Chan and/or 2Chan and Tanasinn and google will return information about a 4Chan/2Chan meme that was kicking about a few years. Different boards, but the meme was kicking about all over the shop several years ago, started at 2Chan I think, and it is that, that is generating all the ghits for this Tanasinn.scope_creep (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Am I missing something? The article itself claims this person is a student who created an online community. That is it. How does this make one notable?Willbennett2007 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this make one NOT notable? TalentlessTroll (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishes notability. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find independent and reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Is the OLC "Tanasinn" even notable enough for its own page? If not, I can't see how its creator would be. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Mommy Manual

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

Private company, first off. Secondly, of the sources listed, one seems to be a local area magazine, and the other is just a mention. Most of the external links listed are Twitter, and this Google search bring up very few hits that seem reliable. Whose Your Guy (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. LiteralKa (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage of the company in reliable sources. The KMVO news story identifies Ria Sharon as from My Mommy Manual but does not discuss the company. Likewise, Likewise, the St. Louis Woman Magazine story is about Sharon, not the company. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and article is fundamentally promotional -Drdisque (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. —fetch ·comms 18:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Non notable company. Ooopsy for slipping through speedy. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Man

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

appears to fail WP:MUSIC Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While I believe the article fails WP:BAND, I found a brief mention in [13] and what appears to be a student website here. Neither of these sources appear to show sufficient notability. ceranthor 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere mentions do not qualify under the notability guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep may be a weak case but for coverage there is Sasfy, Joe (9 May 1986), "Hardcore Punk: Noise vs. Music", The Washington Post; Jenkins, Mark (12 June 1987), "Post-Punk and Neo-Local", The Washington Post; Brace, Eric (2 February 2001), "Marginal issues", The Washington Post all from the one publication. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All from the one location indeed. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to the above, I found an article about them in The Morning Call. Given that online sources from 1980s press coverage are limited, it's something that already this much has turned up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti White

AfDs for this article:

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

I am taking this to AfD as a formality. This page was previously deleted through the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashanti White (2nd nomination). Might be a G4 speedy deletion candidate as an article recreated after a deletion debate, but I did a prod instead to give the author a chance to respond. Prod deleted with comment "White is an aclaimed artist that has significant literary contributions and has contributed greatly to the field of African American studies. Moreover, she has worked extensively with notable artists." which doesn't really address the reasons for deletion from last time round. I was neutral about deletion last time round, and I have no opinion this time round other than seeing if the consensus for this article is still deletion. (Note: the reviews cited in the article seems to be articles written about Ashanti White rather than reviews about her.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the same content. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notabiliy criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem that notalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based upon a Google search, the article warrants inclusion. Articles about and on White are extensive. If Bruce Bonds, whom the subject has released in the same publications, can be included White deserves also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.190.116 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOriginal poster; will revise article if necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijmorring (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Original poster; I have posted links to relevant articles and reviews, including a 2009 Library Journal Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijmorring (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The provided links have the following problems: passing mention, no extensive coverage ([14], [15], [16]); it's a review made by Ashanti White about someones book ([17], [18]); it's not reliable ([19], [20], [21]), her two works in a literatur anthology or it is not a secondary source (own homepage, publishers homepage). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The links provided include the author's homepage (www.ashantiwhite.com), the publisher's page (www.urbanedge.com), writings (which a previous poster noted was necessary), publication sites that include author bios, and a magazine feature on White (Huami Magazine). Each of the links are reliable and attest to the notability of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijmorring (talk • contribs) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sources don't just have to be reliable, they also have to be independent. The author's own website and publisher's website may or may not be reliable, but they are certainly not independent. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would be happier with some third party RS that covers the subject in a little bit more then trivial mentions. If they are notable they would have been noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The publisher site and the author site were added due to prior comments (it seems to be a requirement of dissenters). The magazine articles and actual articles by the subject are INDEPENDENT of each other. Publication with John Hopkins Press and the Institute of African American Studies is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.190.237 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billa 2 - The Chase Continues

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. More than half the information on the article has not yet been officially reported or confirmed from any of the sources provided. The title itself was made by crystal balling. The film has only been merely announced and only the director and lead actor have been reported. No other cast/crew members have been announced yet. This film is highly unlikely to start until 2011, as said in the article and the sources itself. (On a side note, the creator User:Asalajith is a sockpuppeteer who previously used the account User:Brajbilla2007. He was warned many times about WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL.) EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreated version of a deleted article. BUT, as it has different content, it does not quite qualify for a {{db-g4}} speedy... barely. However, I invite editors to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billa 2 from March 2009, as the rumoured Vishnuvardhan film had an article even back then that was redirected to Billa (2007 film)#Sequel to await developments. As the project is still in developement and its production has a quite shaky history, the recreated article, even under a slightly different name and slightly different content, is still WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but please note: that previous article was also created by the sockpuppet user I mentioned above. He has an extensive history of creating premature articles. Also, I wouldn't say the film is still in development-much too early for that even. To be accurate, the director only hopes to get this movie made. And I used a g4 tag since they were two different pages. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn socks. Well... the current redirect still serves, as the plans for filming, unrequited or not, do get coverage. Since this new title is pure speculation, perhaps it should be salted? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't see the need for salting for this particular page. I'm sure the creator won't try to create it again once deleted. The actual page with the true title of the film (Billa 2) is better off being salted. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reasons are mentioned above, crystal balling, too soon, sock puppet etc. I think, a sequel section at Billa (2007 film) is enough as of now. Johannes003 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is pure crystal balling--Sodabottle (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

There is absolutely no consensus in any direction arising from this discussion. The keep !votes tend to point to the GNG; the delete !votes tend to either dispute that the GNG is met or focus on WP:POLITICIAN. All those positions are reasonable, but there's not consensus for any of them. Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ashjian

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

He will be notable if he is elected, but not yet. This is local news. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - fails general notability guidelines and has a tinge of WP:ATTACK about it. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Keep - since cleanup it appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN but there's still things I think are irrelevant to his candidacy (like his financial woes) that could be construed as an attack. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the General Notability Guidelines complaint, note THIS ARTICLE in the main Las Vegas newspaper featuring Ashjian. There seems NO DOUBT that he is a public figure. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring notability does not come from being a candidate for a minor political party in its first year, and a few media pieces in the local news. If he was a serious contender, I would agree with you. At present, this is WP:BLP1E territory, and a brief mention in the election article should suffice, and maybe a paragraph in the article about the political party. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Active politicians are inherently public figures and Wikipedia's ability to provide a neutral platform for their biographies constitutes one of its greatest public goods. That said, this article is POV-laden and I'm whipping out my hacksaw RIGHT NOW. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven't kept up with it since stubbing it out, and I'm glad Carrite is taking charge. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - POV fix completed. There are currently FIVE reputable source footnotes showing which deal with Scott Ashjian as the main subject of the article: four from the largest newspaper in the largest city in Nevada, one from a television station's news website. With all due respect, this is a really bad challenge and I hope that it will be withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the article is less jarring now, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a how-to-vote guide. We provide neutral information about existing public figures and policies, rather than about could be. Do you really think that he has enduring notability right now? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, we don't need to make a determination whether notability will last for all time. He's WAAAAAAAY over the notability bar right now. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea that only Republican and Democratic U.S. Senatorial candidates are notable, and I seriously doubt our guidelines say anything of the sort. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but that is the political system. According to List of United States Senators from Nevada, there hasn't been a senator not from either party. According to List of recent United States Senators, there have been only three senators from another party since 1981. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike WP:RECENTism as much as the next guy when it comes to article content. Article existence is an whole other matter my Aussie(IIRC?) friend. The Tea Party movement of which this candidate is a part has been a huge deal in the media here lately. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carrite is totally wrong - Wikipedia isn't an advertising service for everyone who runs in an election, other sites exist for that purpose. Ashijan doesn't meet the notability criteria for his profession as agreed by the consensus in WP:POLITICIAN and there is also nothing in reliable sources unrelated to his candidacy, therefore he also fails WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what part of this of the cited POLITICIAN guidelines doesn't apply?: 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Subject of the article has "significant coverage in outside reliable sources" up the ying-yang... Carrite (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As numerous politician AFDs in the past have shown, if the coverage is only related to the candidacy, then it isn't notable but falls under WP:NOTNEWS. In this case, coverage of his campaign in a few local news sources = not notable. Valenciano (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage isn't only related to the candidacy, as even a casual review of the titles of the references cited reveals. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Ivory (2nd nomination) is one example; this was an article which I created. Trevor Ivory ended up with 32% of the votes in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One needn't get a third of the vote to be notable. It's all about independent, reliable, third-party coverage about the subject, of which there is so much that it is difficult to understand why we are having this talk. The guy has been THE subject of multiple articles in a big city newspaper... We're not talking the Small Town Cryer running obligatory "Bill Smith is Running for City Council" pieces either. This is a tightly-fought US Senate race. Carrite (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant to the House of Windsor and whatever itty-bitty shire is North Norfolk, but Nevada is ~20% bigger than the United Kingdom by about 16,000 square miles. I think, theoretically, someone running for one of the top four most powerful positions in in the U.K. would be notable, regardless. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure who vandalized away the notability info I originally included when I started the article, but when he entered the race he was polling rather well, considering it's a 3-way race. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This candidacy is actually a pretty important feature of the 2010 Nevada US Senate race... Carrite (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That feature of the race can be adequately covered in United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010, which currently doesn't have a single word of prose about him. --John Vandenberg ^(chat)

I'll beg your pardon, it has two words about him, those being his first and last names, and a link to his biography. (I don't consider his name poetry, so it must be prose, imo) -- Kendrick7^talk 08:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, not yet sure this has enough WP:RS significant secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:NOTE, while overriding WP:BLP1E and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Certainly could be revisited after the election, or at a later point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was under the impression was that past consensus was that most candidates are not notable until elected. Has this changed? Anyways, could fail WP:POLITICIAN since he has not held a position and if he is a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is questionable. The footnote at WP:POLITICIAN says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." He has one in depth profile. The other stuff is more than passing coverage but it being in-depth instead of just general news should be considered. There are also valid RECENTISM and ATTACK arguments for deletion. Will this guy be something that is historically significant if he is not elected? I doubt it. An article on the election is a suitable and reccomeded place for a mention of the guy.Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he draws 3% and Harry Reid wins by 2%, you'd better believe he'll be historically significant. Even of the prospect of this outcome and the crazed charges and countercharges about whether he is a hireling of the opposition has already assured Ashjian's notabilty. This is a top-level election and this candidacy is a significant part of the historical narrative. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments. IMO he has already received enough coverage to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that (see above), I just want to point out that a candidate doesn't have to win or to even have a chance of winning to gain historically significant status. He's already well over the notability bar for WP inclusion by any reasonable reading of general notability rules, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, since he has never held office, but he does meet WP:GNG, having been the subject of multiple news stories -- stories which are about HIM rather than simply reporting on the election. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but he just limps over WP:GNG IMO with the coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with credible sources. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: deleted per author's {{db-g7}} request. – Athaenara ✉ 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Waage (drummer)

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

Self Promotion per WP:PROMOTION

Delete The article is self promotion and has only been edited by one person which is the artist himself in this bloggpost http://gunnarwaage.blog.is/blog/gunnarwaage/entry/1084879/. All the references (but one) that mention him are links to his homepage or his firm Trommuskólinn. The article is also not NPOV as can be seen in the Critique section. --Slembi (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the person making that statement; "The article is self promotion and has only been edited by one person which is the artist himself in this bloggpost http://gunnarwaage.blog.is/blog/gunnarwaage/entry/1084879/." is counting on an administrator at Wiki not understanding Icelandic. Theartist "Gunnar Waage", does not edit this page. Te statement is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We very well have to leave this matter, if harrasement persists, we simply do not have time to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post says "Það þarf ekkert að fara í grafgötur með það að ég á sjálfur hönd í bagga með skráningu greinar um mig á Wikipedia." which means "I'm not going to hide that I have been involved in making the article about me on Wikipedia". So essentially, since the article has only been edited by one person it must be Gunnar himself or some of his staff. Either way this is a self promotion which is not what wikipedia is for. --Slembi (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"hönd í bagga með skráningu greinar " means; involved in the decicionmaking regarding starting the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean, as I said, that Gunnar has some of his staff maintaining a self promoting article for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slembi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist, Gunnar Waage, has requested that this article be deleted. We simply do not have time for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time it could be stated that all written material is promotion of some kind. It is a question of your point of view. Does an article on Wikipedia have promotional value? Does it matter? Is it a crime if it does, or is it simply a crime to register the accomplishments of a certain person? In this case Gunnar Waage, a University founder. Is the article written for promotional purposes? That would mean all articles like that would be just that. Does it have promotional value to exist as a person? Does it have promotional value to accomplish things in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is the right place to debate wikipedia policy. This is clearly a self promoting article and the artist is using it for self promotion by for instance linking to it from the main page of his personal webpage. This is misuse of wikipedia and that is why this article is up for deletion. --Slembi (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not against Wiki policy to make use of hard disck space that contains solid documents. Linking to an artist´s website is not against Wiki policy in this case. Promotional value is difficult to avoid, the moment you leave your house you are promoting your self.

The bottom line is that linking to an artist´s website is not against policy, it is not the same how it´s done, itn this case it is with in appropriate limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik, it seems that this is going to be an endless battle and once it is finished, it will probably rise again from yet another source or username. We have limited time on our hands and Gunnar Waage has made the request to us that the article be dumped. We are very surprised and dissapointed as to how the article has been recieved and we are not prepared to deal with it. but this is probably not meant to be, atleast not for now. Anybody and anything can probably be argued, be it hard - before undisputed documented facts even, but we can not deal with that type of situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gunnar_Waage_(drummer) this is a type of arguement that does not serve the artist, Gunnar Waage. We hope no one feels offended if we decide to call it a day.

best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullialaska (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Parke

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

Reeks of self-promotion. Couldn't find anything on the subject that doesn't. bd2412 T 14:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:BLP. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick investigation shows that his only book is self-published. bd2412 T 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - But with applause for having a sense of humor about himself: He has been described as both a humanitarian and a pathological liar.^{[citation needed]} Convincing evidence to support either allegation has yet to be produced. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. No other evidence of notability. Clear self-promotion. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage, fails WP:BIO in all forms. Great read though. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to misophonia in line with the redirect at selective sound sensitivity as suggested by RHaworth. I know I've voted in this AfD, so technically I'm not allowed, but rather than drag this term and an audiologist's name through the mud in a public AfD discussion, I think we can all safely agree that a redirect is best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Sound Sensitivity

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

Article concerning a mental illness not recognised by the DSM. No academic hits or news hits but lots of forum hits. Also no Lexis or JSTOR hits. Doesn't appear to qualify under WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DSM? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A full list of DSM diagnosis can be found here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there are no mentions anywhere but forums, this is pretty clear cut. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to misophonia in line with the redirect at selective sound sensitivity. Someone has hijacked a redirect that I created. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources found. Nothing found at PubMed; apparently this "syndrome" has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. The discoverer of this syndrome calls herself "Dr." Marsha Johnson but is actually an audiologist.[22] --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on this decision. I am Dr. Marsha Johnson, audiologist, and earned the right to use the use of Dr. by obtaining an AuD (doctorate in audiology). For over 13 years I have been collecting data on this particular population, and it appears to have many names depending on which field of science you consult, i.e., auditory hyperesthethia, a form of OCD, part of the autism spectrum, possibly implication in the worlds of psychology AND neurology, as well as visual and olfactory affects. Over time, over 1300 of these individuals have assembled themselves into a Yahoo Support Group and have attracted attention of other medical professionals. I realize this is a new field in the area of medicine, not easy to define, yet it still exists and deserves recognition. The term misophonia refers to a very large population of people who dislike sound, mostly in a general sense, and is also a recent creation. There are significant differences between misophonia and the 4S condition that deserve recognition. To date, the people are scattered and official studies/clinical studies are not available, but I hope this does not mean that it can simply be deleted or considered 'non-existent'. There are now at least four separate support groups for 4S on the internet, growing rapidly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregon7 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your work and study of this syndrome have not been published anywhere (except webpages, self-published material, etc.), then the article constitutes "original research." Please read Wikipedia's policies about WP:Original Research and WP:Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article constitutes original research. Wikipedia does not publish original research. That is, Wikipedia does not publish material not already published by reliable sources. The only way to prove the article is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. No such source exists. Therefore, this article does not belong on Wikipedia. It should be removed. References to the original research should also be removed from the Wikipedia entry that user RHaworth redirected to. User: Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.52.202 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig's sources address the concerns. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wallets

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

I can't find the significant coverage needed to get this band to the level of notability required by WP:NBAND Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related releases by the band:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. As per nom, haven't been able to find anything that asserts notability. --Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:NOTABLE. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the several songs, I would delete those pages per AfD nom for the same reason. However, the AfD links on those pages do not link correctly, to the song's AfD pages. They link again to the band's AfD page. Some knowledgeable AfD nominator could probably fix this. N2e (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It's one AFd for all 4 articles, so its formatted correctly as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band released multiple albums on Twin/Tone Records, and received sufficient significiant coverage (SPIN, Star-Tribune, Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury-News, Reading Eagle, Star-Tribune, Star-Tribune (Minnie Award for 'top underground rock recording'), Star-Tribune, Milwaukee Journal, Star-Tribune, Star-Tribune (Minnesota Music Academy Award nominees - The Wallets nominated for 10 awards), CD Review Digest), passing at least two criteria of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bream, Jon (31 October 1986), "Local groups spin out new discs", Star-Tribune; Toombs, Mikel (1 April 1987), "Wallets cashing in on new LP", The San Diego Union-Tribune; Arnold, Gina (12 April 1987), "The Wallets / Post-Mod Pranksters' Danceable Rhythms / Art-rockers veer from pure performance", The San Francisco Chronicle; Parsons, Jim (18 June 1988), "`Totally Nude' at the Capitol", Star-Tribune; Bream, Jon (4 November 1988), "It's official: Wallets will fold as newest album is released", Star-Tribune; Baenen, Jeff (11 December 1997), "Former bandmates find success in ad world", Associated Press Newswires; Merrill, Ann (24 December 1997), "Marketing // Creative message to workers", Star-Tribune says they were "popular enough to be written up in Newsweek in 1986". "MUSIC in MINNESOTA 100 for 100", Star-Tribune, 22 October 2000 has them in a list of 100 important figures in the past century of Minnesota music-making duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Music is available on iTunes; videos are available on You Tube Bookworm2828 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Bookworm2828[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no agreed policy that leaders of political parties are notable and there does seem acceptance tyhat the sourcing is not about him but the polices/politics so this could be covered in the party's article if relevant Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cresswell

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Can't find any RS. Five years on Wkipedia without any references (blogs are not references) is enough--Kudpung (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the New Zealand Herald is a RS and has a few trivial mentions including the reference, but that doesn't meet WP:GNG / significant coverage. XLerate (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, also per Kudpung. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On basis of status as former leader of a political party, LibertariaNZ. Evidence. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make him notable? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party leaders are inherently notable, in my opinion. Remember, notability guidelines are just that — guidelines — not sacred rules of universal applicability. I'm not making that up, here's the specific disclaimer on the guidelines page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I'm big on using common sense in these deletion debates. Party leaders are the stuff of history. Tread lightly. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Party leaders are the stuff of history", hah. Give me 30 quid and I could go become leader of a party now - tell me, does that justify me having an article? This party got 0.05 percent of the vote at the last election! Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would "justify you," if it were a real party. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you more inclined to physical manifestations of notability rather than a philosophical standard, here is A New Zealand Herald op ed piece and an article by Cresswell in the NZ Libertarian press. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cresswell as an architectural theorist and political blogger... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cresswell as figure of controversy in NZ politics. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Cresswell's ongoing leading role in the New Zealand libertarian movement. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News report in NZ's biggest paper noting Cresswell as keynote speaker at a political rally. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment that Cresswell's political blog is the 4th most popular in NZ. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that Cresswell is a public figure in a small country. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reliable source and four blogs. Nice. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this inclusion is merited. If one wants to worship at the altar of the mainstream media — which in the New Zealand context means NZ Herald coverage and not too awfully much more — that is their right. I personally think it's a pretty silly way to gauge the importance of all but a handful of Auckland-centered major party politicians. Blogs are becoming the main mode of political discourse around the world, just as electronic dictionaries such as Wikipedia are becoming the main mode of that sort of publication. The question is: is Cresswell worthy of inclusion? I contend that he is, as one of the leaders of the libertarian movement in New Zealand — which is inherently a small subset of a small subset of the entire English-speaking world. Use common sense. Tread lightly. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So common sense is to treat blogs as reliable sources and give the leader of a party with 0.05 percent of the vote an article, based on no coverage in sources. Right. What you call common sense, I call funny-flavoured kool-aid. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue this: the notion of "reliable sources" is a completely false construct. The important thing is veracity and verifiability and that a subject be presented neutrally. There's a huge humpus bumpus going on now here at the big WP over whether Fox News is a (quote) "reliable source" (unquote). The answer, of course, is "it depends what they're saying." Is it accurate? Is it truthful? Is that piece of evidence pulled from Fox News being presented in a neutral manner, or is it being used like a cudgel in a POV edit war for political gain? The same with all sources. We shouldn't be looking down our nose at this source because it's an electronic-only publication or worshipping that one because it is broadcast on a TV station owned by a billionaire that produces news shows as infotainment. Each piece of evidence must be individually weighed for veracity. Just use common sense with regard to deletion debates is all I'm saying. Party leaders are public figures. They should have a very low bar for inclusion. Businesses trying to sell stuff and making use of a Wikipedia page as a free ad should be treated altogether differently, much more harshly. It's ridiculous counting "reliable source google hits" and making judgments on that basis. The question is: does it belong in an encyclopedia? Peter Cresswell??? Yeah, I think so. He's arguably THE leader of the New Zealand libertarian movement, it seems. That's enough to get a free pass from me. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, you need to be putting links you find into the article. This discussion is not about 'is this person notable' it's about 'does the entry provide evidence that this person is notable.' Links added to this discussion are completely irreverent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just now I've added multiple reliable newspaper sources that reported on his various activities while he was party leader. It appears that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And do the sources cover him in significant detail? Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They simply report on his political activities as noted; they aren't providing his life history, for example. If there was only one or two of them, I'd not be inclined to recommend "keep", but I'm going along with the GNG's statement that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." And that quite a few of them turn up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former leader of a registered political party. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where does that appear in the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines specify "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." " I consider that the article already references significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article are already provided, so I was adding relevant information about the subject. In comment to one of your earlier claims, please note that you need more than "30 quid" to become the leader of a registered political party in New Zealand; such registration also requires a certain membership figure (which some other parties have failed to meet and thus failed to be registered). Also please note that I am not a supporter of the party, nor of its central philosophy, but am aware of it through its media coverage. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your rationale, make it clear when you post it. When commenting on AfDs, make clear your reasoning behind the comment; simply stating "former leader of a registered political party" is not likely to be considered by an admin. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A very salient point has been made that even if reports have been found in established newspapers, this does not necessarily assert notability.--Kudpung (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source; the mentions in the NZ Herald are trivial, not supporting notability. N2e (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does seem like an interesting person, however I will be voting "delete" here. Reference number 1 is only a short article and Cresswell is only given a passing mention, so this cannot be used to establish notability. I am unable to verify the others as they are from hard copy sources, but the titles seem to indicate these articles are also about groups and events related to Cresswell, but not necessarily about Cresswell himself. I would be willing to change my vote if someone with access to these "dead tree" refs will give us a general percentage count of how much Cresswell is covered in them. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. By the way, I agree with you that the mention in the NZ Herald does not support notability. But the others (taken together) do, in my view:
- The article in The Timaru Herald: 14%.
- The one in The Evening Post (March 2001): 56%.
- The one in The Dominion: 13%.
- The one in Waikato Times: 22%.
- The one in The Press: 75%.
- The one in The Evening Post (December 2001): 80%. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep party leader with notable coverage. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Party leaders are not inherently notable and the coverage (in my view) isn't "significant". For politicians, I think significant coverage needs to be more than the standard incidental political mentions. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Romanization of Korean. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romaja

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

A page simply for the Korean word for Roman alphabet. Such a page would be better off redirecting to Roman alphabet; its existence is redundant. Otherwise, we'd have pages for Luomazi (the Chinese word for "Roman alphabet"), Romanska alfabet, and Romanische alphabet, as well as all foreign-language translations for "Roman alphabet". The page was created by an IP editor when I was six (just kidding, not really), and has not changed much since. A redirect was contested in March 2004, with a pretty non-solid excuse. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails at WP:NOT#DICT. Wiktionary might find a home for it, but it is not encyclopedic content.--Kudpung (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Romanization of Korean. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Korean.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Korean. `I've withdrawn my Delete vote (although the reason for it is still legitimate). I did not know about the existence of the Romanization of Korean page, and I think Shirt's suggestion is a feasible alternative.--Kudpung (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you: just as "Romaji" redirects to Romanization of Japanese, so "Romaja" should redirect to Romanization of Korean--Shirt58 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of YouTube

AfDs for this article:

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

An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. The previous AFD for this article did not result in consensus and the latest dispute may have led to some progress. Deletion would also tend resolve the dispute per the Gordian knot. Note that Criticism of The New York Times was deleted on similar grounds so there is good precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Nomination completed by CIreland (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason given by the nominating user as to why this article shouldn't excist. Sources are clearly evident throughout the article. I also find it very bad form to nominate this article while the article is under full protection, as this prevents the article from being improved upon, so as to address concerns that may be brought up here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was to strike while the iron is hot. Any suggested improvements can be recorded here or made using the editprotected method, as the nomination was. As for the reason to delete, the essential point is that the article frames the content to be critical in a negative way which is contrary to core policy. Per WP:SOAP, we are not in the business of providing a forum for complaints or other hostile advocacy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources throughout and I don't see enough problems with the article to warrant deletion. MPEG.la 13:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is not so much the sourcing but the structure and title of the article. By dedicating an article to negative comments about YouTube, we tend to give undue weight to them in an unbalanced way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the article to Public Perception of Youtube, and then creating balanced sections to off set the negative ones, such as Praise, or whatever? That should adress concerns.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems best not to invent our own categories for coverage of YouTube but to stick to those of reliable sources. For example, the extent to which there has been copyright violation on YouTube and the related Viacom suit seem quite notable and so might form an well-defined subtopic. We should create subtopics in such a specific way to avoid the article becoming a WP:COATRACK for all manner of minor and unrelated complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a cleanup, and some people involved in edit warring need to have their heads banged together at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it would be good to have more hands and eyes working this over, this seems like a legitimate sub-page of YouTube. And that's what this is — a topical discussion with its own page to keep the main article from becoming too unwieldy. This is not an indiscriminate hit job, but a conscious splitting of an overlong article... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-refenced article, and part of the larger scheme Category:Criticisms of companies. Lugnuts (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, reasonable subpage, part of a similar series of "criticism of X" articles. Well-referenced, doesn't look like synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mildly obnoxious and moderately obvious WP:POINT nomination made to give the nominator a soapbox to rail against another AfD that didn't seem to go his way. The difference between this and the NYT article is the difference between a few rabbit turds in the Pacific Ocean and the Cuyahoga. Badger Drink (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attend numerous AFDs and have long since learnt not to expect too much of them. I am not sure which other AFD you are referring to but I have none in mind beyond the NYT case which I cited and which was successful. Please address the nomination more directly as your rabbit turd metaphor seems too obscure. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT AfD is the one which I refer to. I apologize - profusely - for the obscurity of my metaphor regarding rabbit turds. I am aware of the potential for confusion, given the Leporidae's tendacy to, in layman's terms, eat its own shit. The gist of the metaphor relates to the potential of the water contained within the Pacific Ocean (the largest body of water currently in existence on Earth) to be rendered unpotable (that is to say, undrinkable by humans, or at least markedly foul) by the existence of "a few" (to put a more precise quantification in play, let's say three to six) rabbit stools (a relatively small-sized stool, about a quarter-inch in diamater ^[1] ) within said body of water. To restate in a more direct, vox populi manner: The article has a few things wrong with it, but these few things are neither so numerous nor so extreme as to warrant deletion, a situation which seems to have not been the case for the NYT criticism article your opening statement seems to draw upon for inspiration. I hope this has proved illuminating - if further elucidation is required, I will be only too happy to oblige. Badger Drink (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism of The New York Times article no longer exists and you did not participate in its AFD. Your comments seem to be just a surmise which begs the question. I have seen both articles and consider that there is little substantive difference. The NYT and YouTube are both media organisations and so the parallel seems close. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the article should be kept, let's remember to WP:AGF here, and stick to good arguments rather than attacking the nominator. Robofish (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relatively good, generally well-referenced article collecting several significant criticisms. I don't agree that this is indiscriminate or inherently POV. Comparisons to other articles are not helpful - I didn't see Criticism of The New York Times, so I can't say how it compares to this article, but this one is a fair compilation of negative reactions to an important recent establishment. If we're going to compare it to something, compare it to Criticism of Wikipedia - this article is at least as good as that one. I suggest a WP:SNOW close of this AfD. Robofish (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider renaming, as "Controversies of YouTube". Avoiding the highly negative word "criticism" could help balance the scope of text inside the article. For example, I suspect there are other controversies, in a rather postive view, that YouTube has "changed the way the world sees videos" and perhaps some groups are concerned that YouTube has affected their customers in some major upset, or perhaps prompted legislation to be changed about copyright issues of items seen in a video and how long is "too long" for a flash of product to appear onscreen, when panning the horizon, etc. NOTE: There could be a redirect as "Criticism of..." to maintain compatibility with articles named in that style; however, the word "Controversies" has become favored to broaden the coverage and allow for positive upsets, such as being so successful that other groups had to react quickly to the positive avalanche of benefits provided by YouTube. Such a renaming (as "Controversies of") would diffuse the cited grounds for this AfD, while also helping to shift the NPOV-balance of the article's text. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because you might as well delete the Google one as well. Come on, this is a great article. AboundingHinata talk 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of northward-flowing rivers of the United States

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

Listcruft. Questionable notability - why should there be a list about north flowing rivers but none about rivers that flow west, south and east? The entire list is based on the very dubious and unreferenced concept that few rivers flow north. Not surprisingly other articles based on the same concept, like Devil's river and List of rivers that flow north have been deleted already. Also, very much an unlimited and unverifiable list as first, defining what north flowing is very arbitrary, with most rivers flowing in many different directions and secondly, an arbitrary definition of what a river is (are creaks and streams rivers?). Kostja (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Kostja (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As pointed out by Kostja, it is not clear, what "north flowing" means. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An interesting and useful list. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not useful, except to dispel a myth, which it does so badly by promoting the mythical idea in the first place. See this talk page comment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rivers that flow north for more. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trout Carrite for extremely inappropriate !vote. Simply trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have an opinion on this particular list, but the belief that northward rivers are rare is a persistent one which Wikipedia should address in some way or some form of this list will just keep getting re-created. Or another way to look at it, there's nothing special about north flowing rivers, but the myth that there is might itself be worth writing about. Kmusser (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, and contradicts the linked articles (the first one I click on has an article saying "flows west and north"). "Flowing north" is a poorly defined concept anyway, since many rivers twist and turn: it is more usual to classify rivers by what they flow into. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, particularly the point that 'flowing north' is poorly defined, and hence this list has no clear inclusion criteria. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rivers of the United States. At the moment, that article is broken down into 24 smaller articles which offer very little information other than the state(s) through which the rivers flow. Hopefully, there will be something on the the order of a sortable table, with information about length, tributaries, and direction. Unfortunately, the key information-- that "due to the shape of the North American landmass and the location of most of the contiguous United States in the southern half of North America", most rivers in the United States do not flow in a northward direction-- has never been sourced, so this one was begging to be nominated, and it will probably lose. I'm all in favor of encouraging topics about the subject of hydrography. I think that the question "why should there be a list about north flowing rivers but none about rivers that flow west, south and east?" raises the need for a more informative table of U.S. rivers. The reason why our nation's rivers tend to flow west, south and east, of course, is that they empty into bodies of water in the west (Pacific Ocean), the south (Gulf of Mexico) and the east (Atlantic Ocean). Mandsford 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Mandsford has a valid point, I don't see what content needs to be merged here or how leaving the redirect would serve a purpose (per the delete comments above, and Uncle G's note). Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "List of X in Y that Z" articles really need to justify the topic. "Rivers in the United States" is a well-established geographical topic, but I have a hard time figuring out why "flows northwards" should be singled out. As I said in the broader AFD in 2006, rivers flow in all sorts of directions, and northwards is not a particularly significant direction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I feel compelled to point out that there is a scientific basis for the "myth" -- and, thus, a potentially sound context for the article. That is, there is a reason why few rivers in the continental U.S. flow north. When glaciers covered much of northern North America, they produced huge amounts of meltwater that flowed away from the glacier ice, which mostly meant south (also east and west). That meltwater carved out major river valleys (like the valleys of the Mississippi, Ohio, Hudson, Connecticut, and Columbia Rivers) that now form much of the continent's drainage system -- and that drainage system includes few rivers that flow north. However, this list of rivers that flow north does not belong in an encyclopedia. These rivers have nothing much in common other than flowing north. Thus, there's no unifying principle for this list or any list like it. At best, the list could be used to solve barroom arguments, but since it's inherently difficult to define "what constitutes a river for the purpose of this list?" and "how much northward flow does it have to have to qualify?", I don't imagine that it would be particularly effective even at settling barroom quarrels. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Christian College

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

Unimportant college with merely 200 students. The article is unsourced. Fails WP:N DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This college lacks any independant, relaible, verifiable thrid party sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - Has no references at all. searches also fail to provide the slightest mention of the school within the definition of WP:RS. Plenty of entries in directories and lists of private school, but nothing that asserts notability for this for-profit company. Article reads like a brochure and is therefore also in possible violation of WP:ADVERT.--Kudpung (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school lacks notability as far as I can see, I cannot find any reliable third party sources. As the comment above me says, the article is also written like an advertisment for the school, which may be a violation of WP:ADVERT. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on its website this is a K-12 school, not a "college" in the American sense. I haven't had time to review this in more detail yet. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite its name "College," this is actually a K-12 school and is thus notable per se under the official or unofficial mantra, "All High Schools Are Notable." Carrite (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is at least partly a secondary school (High School). The consensus has developed that all High Schools are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school; the reasons for keeping are at WP:NHS. Sources are available to add to the page. The better way with such articles is to source/expand rather than delete. TerriersFan (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reluctantly withdrawn my 'delete' in deference to TerriersFan who has worked hard this year to improve, establish, and implement new policy that I was not bang up-to-date on. I still maintain however that the original reasons for the creation of this article were possible advertising, but that's now moot.--Kudpung (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it exists; it includes a High School levels; thus, it is notable--Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. If it were to be sourced per WP:V and WP:CS/WP:RS, then that part of the article could be kept. As it is, no sources, no article in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lacy

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

The article appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. The citations included are about exhibitions that Lacy has contributed to, these are not independent sources. A search on Google News and Google Scholar reveals no sources to support significant impact. Being a curator is not, of itself, considered notable for an article and BLP articles for curators tend to be supported by evidence of publication history, academic reputation or impact on the long term historical record. The article was created in 2006 and flagged for improvement since 2008, so it seems unlikely that this will be fixed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally speaking, being a curator is just a job like any other organisational position and in this particular case, I fail to see what makes a case for notability of this job of curator of this gallery or project and the person that holds it. Certainly the hotchpotch of references, some of which are dead links - do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:RS.--Kudpung (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this doesn't fit WP:GNG. I think curators need to fulfill similar requirements as academics. As notability is not inherited, curating a notable exhibition would require a bit more in order to fulfill WP:N. Having said that, few of these exhibitions appear to be notable. freshacconci talktalk 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination - wrong article nom'd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series)

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

Unreferenced, limited area of viewership, no proven claims of notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian review, short Metro review, extremely useful piece written by the show's executive producer in Broadcast, 10 reasons to watch PDS, from the Telegraph. I'm a little perplexed by this nomination, this isn't some obscure series, and when papers like the Telegraph and Guardian are covering it well.. Someone another 11:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite it being an awful show there's enough reviews and commentary on it to make notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs exist, nationally distributed = please review WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the most wholehearted agreement with Dylanfromthenorth - utter shite but notable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perplexing nomination, primetime TV shows on major channels easily pass notability. Exxolon (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Neptune

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

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

There is no particular indication that these terms are commonly-used in the literature about planets. For example, an ADS search for "cold Neptune" reveals only two papers that use the term [23], and a search for "cold Jupiter" gives a list of 6 papers, only 2 of which use the term [24]. It therefore appears that neither term has gained much traction, and it may be best to either delete these articles as non-notable classification system or perhaps to merge them into Gas giant. Icalanise (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it's appropriate to have two articles (Cold Neptune and Cold Jupiter) in the same deletion discussion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has a section "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". If you do not agree with having multiple nominations in the same discussion then you should take that issue up on the main AfD talk page: at present it remains a valid course of action. Icalanise (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since User:Thincat asked me to expand on my reasons for the nomination, here's what I posted at their talk page in response to their enquiry: "Hi, the reason I nominated these is because the usage of the terms seems to be little more than an adjective+noun combination and thus trivial. The terms are also poorly-defined, where for example do you draw a line between "warm Jupiters" and the "cold Jupiters"? This contrasts with the hot Jupiters which represent a distinct population of objects, as evidenced by the mass/period diagram for radial-velocity exoplanets which shows a cluster of giant planets at roughly 3-days orbital period and masses typically around 1 Jupiter mass.(The other major population of giant planets identifiable in the mass/period diagram appears to be orbital periods longer than ~100 days, and a wide range of eccentricities, i.e. the eccentric Jupiters.) If you regard these terms as an atmospheric category, we already have the Sudarsky extrasolar planet classification. In short, I do not think these classifications are independently notable." Icalanise (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles. They cite reliable sources such as The Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy Magazine, Space.com and National Geographic Society, and there are several scholarly articles on each.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the majority of the references in Cold Jupiter are in fact all to do with the press release surrounding the now-disproven planet VB 10b. Essentially the article is extrapolating an entire class of planets from this one discovery. Icalanise (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources referred to by Cold Jupiter labeled VB 10b as a "Cold Jupiter" based on its size and distance from its parent star — the existence of VB 10b is not at issue here, only that "Cold Jupiter" is a category to which planets like it belong.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the discovery paper for VB 10b (available on arXiv here) does not use the term "cold Jupiter" at all, it was only used in the press release. Not particularly convincing that this is used a scientific term for a category of planets. Icalanise (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are using "Cold Jupiter" as a common name, it's still acceptable. The issue is not terminology, it's whether such a category exists. The sources say that it does.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a notability criterion to consider. Is "cold Jupiter" actually generally used for a specific class of planets, and how is that class defined (and can we verify that definition)? As far as I can see on the Cold Jupiter page as currently exists, we have one reference that uses the term "Jupiter twin", and four rehashes of the VB 10b press release (one of which is to a blog post, which may call into question the suitability of it being used as a reference anyway). The literature search appears to indicate the primary usage of the term is in the sense of "let's set up several models of Jupiter-like planets at various levels of insolation, label them 'hot Jupiter', 'warm Jupiter', 'cold Jupiter' for convenience". That is to say, mostly this term is just used as a convenient label to compare various theoretical scenarios, rather than an actual specific class of objects. The VB 10b press release (cited via 4 separate links) seems to be little more than a convenient label for "not hot Jupiter". At this point I would argue it makes more sense that if we keep something at "Cold Jupiter" it should be a redirect rather than a stubby article for a poorly-defined term. Icalanise (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is the opposite of the more notable Hot Neptune. I knew that some scientific papers use the term Cold Neptune. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just the opposite of the term "hot Neptune" it becomes essentially a dictionary definition. Question is whether "cold Neptune" is a specific term in its own right (e.g. the hot Jupiters are clearly a specific population of objects), or just an adjective+noun combination (i.e. a "Neptune" that is cold). I see little evidence that the term is anything other than the latter. Icalanise (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No evidence either in the article or in GB or GS that "cold Neptune" is a term used by astronomers. For cold Jupiter, the article has a blog reference pointing at the press release already mentioned, but again nothing on GB or GS. It seems like WP:NEO. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neptune is by definition, "cold", it is an "ice giant". And nothing in the article explains why this category is different from the ice giant category actually used by scientists. ;; As discovered by other users, "Cold Jupiter" is a term used to exclusively describe a planet that does not exist, and is a simple combination of "cold" and "Jupiter", rather than being any actual category of planet. It should never have existed as an article, it should have been a redirect to the planet in question (which does not exist), if that. As it is a horrible name for a redirect, it should not exists at all. 110.173.235.68 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pineapple Dance Studios. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios)

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

Fails WP:GNG and contains no WP:RS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already passed speedy deletion and confirmed by administrator to have notability. If you want me to improve the article, fine, but theres no way the article is going - his frequent media activities and public interest ensure an article should be here.

Agreed sources need to be improved, and I am working on that. As for notability, that is more than covered in the article. I will add references now, and hopefully that will satisfy you. I do think its a shame when people would rather delete an article than improve it, especially when its one which is so clearly bound to either stay, or end up back, on wikipedia. IainUK (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Threatening to re-create an article that might be deleted via community discussion is a bit disruptive, so be careful. Please also read the information on WP:AFD on how to comment/discuss here. I don't want to keep fixing your formatting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not threatened to re-create a deleted article Bwilkins! I am saying, due to this man's current popularity and media coverage, there is little or no doubt that the article will be created again if it is deleted - I did not say or imply this would be by me. Please read carefully. Sorry for the minor formatting error, and thank you for taking the time to clear it up. IainUK (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References now added to article, so hopefully that point is satisfied. As for notability - well it seems to me that is all covered, but if it can be improved somehow, some help or advice would be nice! Deleting an article of a popular person is not the best first option for the community in my opinion. IainUK (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at this time. According to the article, subject has had "brushes" with fame (not notable) and showed up to dance in a Pussy Cat Dolls subsidiary team, but left prior to participating or becoming involved with them in any way.(not notable) Other than that, it looks like he was on Big Brother(not notable) and works as a dancer and formed a new pop band of sorts.(too new to establish notability) Clearly, it sounds like he's on the right track for "fame". However, in my opinion, notability has not yet been established to support a stand-alone article. Could suggest a redirect to the band's article, but the band appears to be lacking notability as well. A redirect to Pineapple Dance Studios may be plausible, but he's barely mentioned there. Cindamuse (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he has his own article. You couldn't fit him into one of those articles because he does so much now, he is no longer just a front man on the Pineapple Dance Studios (although even that by itself warrants an article - see Louie Spence ) - he also has a band, he features on other TV shows - so you couldn't tie him down to one of these articles. Do a UK search on Google, or any news site for "Andrew Stone" and make your own mind up how well know he is. You'll see he is everywhere (but wikipedia?) IainUK (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before I participate in discussions here, I read the article, review the talk page and article's history, and perform a comprehensive search for reliable sources to either support or oppose inclusion on Wikipedia. I do not compare articles with other stuff to justify one position or another. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. As such, I have determined that the subject is not notable at this time. It's not personal. Just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bwilkins talk page shows that he wants the article deleted because he does not like the subject. Andrew Stone is one of the main people on a prime-time TV show with over 9 million viewers, he has done other things like appearing on Big Brother, and he is a member of a Pop band. He has done many press interviews and is popular in the UK media (as the references prove). Seems so strange to me that anyone would want to delete an article for someone who is so prominent in the media. Surely that would damage wilkipedia's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? At what point did I ever say that I didn't like the subject. AfD is not a personal attack on your work, so stop taking it personally. Adding comments that are distinctly untrue such as the above will serve to weaken your argument. You made your !vote, now get to work trying to actually make the article VALID. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way you spoke about the subject on your talk page. The TV show already has its own article, as do the studios themselves, along with other people who were on the show - should they all be deleted too? I have spent time improving the article, I have added references like I said. The fact that this guy is always on TV means people will want to know who he is. That is why I made the article. The only person being personal here is you - with your direct insults, remarks on talk page and in Edit Summaries... I am simply passionate about wikipedia and giving people the information they need. Unlike you, I haven't said anything personal. I don't know you. IainUK (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge anything worthwhile into the band article, imo as yet not individually notable, seems like the most notable individual thing was going into big brother for those days. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the sources on the page such as 1, 2, and 3 appear to be "significant coverage". Are the sources reliable? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are widely accepted, they seem a bit promotional though imo and in the content there is nothing really shouting at me this is a notable thing or a notable award or a single charted song. Is there something specific that says to you that this individual person is notable enough to warrant his own BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I'm kind of new at this whole "voting" thing but I've read and closed enough AFDs to see the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" quite frequently. If a subject has those things, then it would pass WP:GNG right? The fact that independent journalists have decided to write about these "mundane things" he has done, the "mundane award" he got, and interview him should give some weight to the "keep" argument shouldn't it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:MUSN it gives a fuller definition - as this guy is described as a "wannabe pop singer", the type of coverage is important (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read both. WP:GNG is our main notability guideline, the other is supplemental. It is quite possible for a "wannabe" pop star to be notable if secondary sources find his "wannabeness" significant. Example, "Youtube celebrities" and "myspace bands" aren't WP:MUSIC notable on their own no matter how many "groupies" they have or how much people talk about them on forums and blogs. However, if independent journalists from news organizations find them significant enough to cover, then they can still meet the general notability guidelines. Now whether or not this warrants a standalone article or not is another matter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one journalist calls him a "wannabe pop star" and another calls him a "successful pop star" is irrelevant. Yes, the type of coverage matters to some extent - but whether well-known for a good thing or a bad thing, I'd say is still noteworthy. There is no doubt this is a controversial character - but I'd say most people in the UK at least know who he is. With all his media activities currently, people are sure to search for his name to find out more about him - do we really want to let those people down? IainUK (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Cindamuse who has said it all for me. 20 minutes or more of searching for something that makes a true celebrity here has failed to provide any RS that establish the subject's claim to fame.--Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that being a "true celebrity" or having a "claim to fame" is not required for inclusion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is also a minimum requirement for possible inclusion only. This here is really a personal judgment through personal interpretation of the guidelines, he has three citations and they mention him a fair bit, so make your choice, I am waiting to be persuaded that there is something specific that is notable for his own BLP on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has reliable sources indicating notability and is active in multiple areas making merging into any parent article impractical. Exxolon (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series). Doesn't have a huge amount of coverage, probably best covered in the context of that show. Btw, here's a story about him for another reality show in 2007:[25] Fences&Windows 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series). Per Fences and windows just above. --John (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The subject rather obviously hasn't achieved anything of any significant. As one of the sources says, he "just hasn’t made it yet." 217.44.64.166 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are reliable - subject seems to be active in the media a lot. Worth keeping. 80.82.209.127 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ well known person - article shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.127 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing attempt to vote stack here. Striked repeated !vote. Rehevkor ✉ 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that he is notable at this time. Codf1977 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry but to say there is no evidence that he is currently notable is simply untrue - the article clearly states he has just been involved in a primetime docudrama on Sky1 - one of the main national channels in the UK. It also states he is in a band with a lot of upcoming and current activity, gigs, TV and festival appearances. It also states that he will feature prominently again in a new primetime Sky1 docudrama currently in production. It also states his other media activities, such as being a celebrity guest on Big Brother. And all of these notability claims are sourced to the likes of BBC, Sky1 and The Guardian newspaper. The subject has taken part in multiple media activities (as referenced), and has had significant roles in multiple notable tv programmes. He is certainly controversial, and has a significant fan base in the UK. It wouldn't be appropriate to fit him into one article, when he has done work in other areas which is notable on its own. If I type "Andrew Stone" into a worldwide Google search from the UK, every single result but 2 on the top 3 pages is about this subject. I really don't think we should be deleting articles like this from wikipedia. IainUK talk 10:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And may be in the future but now he does nto seem to be notable. Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh WP:GHITS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bwilkins, thank you for your good faith comment. I am familiar with WP:GHITS and believe I have a good understanding of it. To clarify, I am not saying the Google results alone are should be a guarantee that the subject is included in Wikipedia. In fact, contrary to the examples in the policy, I have given a fully detailed comment stating why I believe there is notability in this article. However, I do believe the Google results have some relevance, as it confirms the subject's enduring popularity, at least in the UK - and it also confirms that there are many sources are of good quality (BBC, Sky, etc.). So whilst I do not believe google hits warrants an article, I do believe that it is relevant to my overall point and this discussion. There has been no breach or confusion of WP:GHITS here, but nevertheless, I appreciate your good intention. IainUK talk 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That he has done nothing of significance does not necessarily make him non-notable. There are plenty of people in this day of 'celebrity for the sake of it' who have done nothing of significance, but remain notable. Admittedly, it's probably not a reason on its own to keep the article, but it is not the only reason for keeping it. The person is the subject - and arguably the most popular character - in an extremely popular UK tv show - one which consistently pulls in huge viewing figures (both proportionately to viewing figures and compared to other shows on the same channel) and one of the reasons for this is this person. It is true that his band are not successful in that they are not popular, do not have a large fan base, have sold few albums - indeed, do they actually have a record contract?? - but, again that does not make him non-notable. In fact, he is famous BECAUSE of the abject failure of his band and because they are renowned as being a bit rubbish coupled with his belief that they are the best thing this side of pluto. He is what we call in the UK a 'wannabe' and I think there is some misunderstanding about what this means. It does not mean that because they 'want to be' famous therefore there are not famous; instead it is a reference to someone who simply thinks they are something which the lack the real talent to be - in this case a popstar. Ironically, as is often the case, these people become famous for their 'wannabe' attitude, rather than for the talent they believe they have. I believe we should keep the article, and my vote goes that way. However, if that cannot be the case, unquestionably he should be mentioned in detail in the Pineapple Dance Studios article. 78.150.21.193 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into Pineapple Dance Studios; I don't think he's quite notable enough for a standalone article, although he probably deserves a mention in Pineapple Dance Studios. The notability is very borderline to me; the coverage is there but not quite significant enough or of the right spirit (i.e., sort of promotional or blurbs). —fetch ·comms 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my comments earlier as I think he just squeaks by WP:GNG. Also would support a merge. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR keep Missiology is a well-established term. If this search isn't convincing enough, a Wikipedia article search for "missiology" (excluding this article, of course) shows any number of other reliably sourced uses. Nothing about this close prevents the appropriate improvement of this article. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missiology

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

Citation Zach Beauvais (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evangelism. Heck, I'm a preacher's kid and all, but this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Missiology is simply a neologism, an attempt to redefine evangelism and essentially "bring it up-to-date" in the eyes of the unchurched or attract believers who heard the terms "missionary" or "missions" and immediately related that to falling asleep in church. It is also a somewhat thinly veiled, if not blatant attempt to promote the organization of Missiology.org as noted in the reference and links. I would suggest to redirect to Evangelism. Cindamuse (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure promotion for Missiology.org. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a brochure. Of the three refs provided, one is back to its own site, the other accessible one is a dictionary definition in an online dictionary. More WP:RS within the meaning of Wikipedia pôlicy are required before this organisation can be demonstrated to be mature enough for its own entry in this encylopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under the premise that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that this word is a neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This is not a neologism, but is a specialised discpline, which I thought was proimarily concerned with the study of Christian Missions, particularly in the same sense as "missionary". It differs from evangelism which is much more about preaching the gospel than deciding where (and perhaps how) to preach it. One might describe it as the academic discipline of the study of Christian Missions. I do not think that the article is about an organisation at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - for exactly the same reasons listed above. I don't understand how a single vote to three deletes and a redirect means that the flag is removed? I think it should be deleted, or, if it is not, that the citations (which have been noted for clean-up since 2007(!) should be completely revamped. The article reads like a brochure for a practice, the citations are inadequate, and several editors believe it should be kept as a candidate for deletion. Zach Beauvais (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FN FAL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmgewehr 58

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

Repetitive stub. All data is already listed in FN FAL CMarshall (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FN FAL, as it is just a costumized version of it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to FN FAL: per above. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Fraternity and Sorority Council of Ottawa

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

The article fails to meet the WP:ORG guidelines due to a lack of evidence for significant impact. The sources included do not appear to mention the inter-frat council though there is mention of a North-American Interfraternity Conference. Google searches and Google News show little evidence of non-circular sources. Fæ (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero hits in a Google News Archive search. If somebody finds more, I'm happy to revisit my delete recommendation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Earnshaw

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

This is a pair of articles about two sisters who played the part of an infant on a television miniseries. Because baby acting can't really be considered "acting" per se, I don't believe that this fulfills the notability guideline for entertainers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete. Notability not established in either article. Cindamuse (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both article fail notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Why wasn't it already speedied under A7 within minutes of it s creation?--Kudpung (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because asserting a film role is an "indication of importance". However, yes... the assertion fails. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete x 2 - Baby actors with one career role? Carrite (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as waaaaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to say the least. Even after taking only into the account the discussion from the community (i.e. a cross-section thereof as what we normally get in these deletion discussions) and not from those who were obviously canvassed here from outside, the arguments for retention seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion, but not enough IMO to comfortably close as a solid keep. In any event, the article is going to remain kept, as no consensus defaults to keep. –MuZemike 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Chand Pandey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A re-creation of an article previously deleted at AfD. It is therefore speediable. However, at one point a non-SPA helped edit it and actually improved it, leading me to expect an improved article and deterring me from speedying it. Since that time it has reverted to being a hugely long-winded hagiography, has got even longer, and has sprouted family photographs. I can't imagine that it will improve and stay improved, but perhaps some reader of this AfD will disagree and undertake to keep it in good condition.

Earlier deletions

This project page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2008. The result of the discussion was "delete, and allow for possible future re-creation".

This article was nominated for deletion review on 31 July 2008. The result of the discussion was "deletion endorsed".

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2009. The result of the discussion was "delete".

This article has previously appeared as Prem C. Pandey, Prem chand pandey, Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Dr. P C Pandey, P. C. Pandey, Dr. Prem Chand Pandey, Imtial, User:Ekbal anuj, and User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey. This list is not necessarily complete.

Hoary (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deletion because the family photograph was available at the time of marriage and stored by some body who have regourously added and submitted. The matter of the article was not touched from long time. It seems that no one responsible person is behind this. I hope your warning is enough for such contributors. I once again want to say with administrator of wikipedia that Prof. Pandey is gentle and notable man and his publicity may be a cause of so regorouse submission of family photographs. As a fan of P C Pandey sir I request the admin wikipedia to stop deletion. Present 3 Image is essential and rest I have deleted as unknown editor. Thanks in advance for warning but stop deletion I request you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila pk (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As "Ahila pk", what's above is your first and so far your only edit, but an IP number has removed the photos and (with no explanation) one list. As "a fan of P C Pandey" but also as a co-creator of an encyclopedia, would you care to continue to transform the article into something that summarizes concisely? -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a highly technical and very detailed resume of an individual's educational and professional background within the various fields in which the subject has worked. It is difficult to determine the notability of the individual within the scientific community, based on the content provided. A copy edit is implausible and the content is wholly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The subject of the article may indeed be a very kind and gentle man with a beautiful family presented in wonderful photos. However, this does not establish notability appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete. "vppram" has contributed many Image related with Professor Prem Chand Pandey, which was submitted by some one to the article within few days. It is not base of deletion of such notable scientist now. Let the wikipedia admin should make it as notable article. Family of P C Pandey is very great and historical but the person in whose marrige he was is his nephew in village relation. Being a villager is not any bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis gp (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Louis gp; I see you are new here too. It's no more the job of a Wikipedia admin to improve an article than it is the job of any editor. Perhaps you would like to do some more work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'remain it as notable article. I have supported the article as any user in wikipedia, I do not remember now. I am very familiar to the Prfessor P C Pandey who is very liberal and generally attended the marraige ceremony of his village people who requested with love. He have no so much poover background of family. He have his wife Savita Pandey and only daughter Nidhi Pandey therefore no reason of any son of his own. Yes he love Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Allahabad University very much, so he attended his marriage which was arranged from his native village Ramapur. In his marriage many friends and Ph.D. batch mate of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey from Allahabad University present who were also familiar with well known scientis in India. The Dr. pandey attended the ceremoney so many of then thinks that Dr. Vivek is his father. I have seen all the all Image tagged with his name on wikipedia carefully this was pandey although who added all on the page clear by discussion may be wrong but it should not be base of deletion. I am too worry by this wikipedia decison and hope a genious scientist who work for making a base to atmospheric and oceanic in India will remain a an encyclopedic notable article for wikipedia. Once again I request the wikipedia person to take user help to improve it rather than delete such labourious Indian Scientist who work and work only grow for Indian science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.245 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look, this article is was an overblown, unreadable, piece of crap. Sorry, but it's true. It ~~needs~~ needed to be shorter by half and written in English prose EXPLAINING the man's importance rather than using some sort of terse, Who's Who In India dictionaryese. That said, there is clearly sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion plus a significant academic award showing, which should be enough to get him over the notability bar. But please, for the love of god, get this article fixed. It's an embarrassment. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But please, for the love of god, get this article fixed. Who are you addressing here? -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.........................Whom it may concern. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it again and it is MUCH better now. Kudos to the fixer or fixers. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Do not delete but work on the matter on books having ISBN number based on wikipedia article. I hope wikipedia will work on these LLC book publishers matter who have even not consulted with Professor Pandey. I want this clearify that Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey is his beloved nephew of his village by remote relation but not a son. The below books are depends on wiki article please look on the matter.

“Indian Antarctic Program: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1156182395 EAN: 9781156182390. [26]

“Indian Meteorologists: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 115621856X EAN 9781156218563. [27]

“Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Faculty: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157012329 EAN 9781157012320. [28]

“Indian Science Writers: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1156297648 EAN 9781156297643. [29]

“Indian Academics: Amartya Sen, Prem Chand Pandey, H. S. S. Lawrence, Suchitra Mitra, Jagadguru Rmabhadrcrya, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar'”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157604501 EAN 9781157604501. [30]

“Allahabad University: Allahabad University Alumni, Allahabad University Faculty, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Prem Chand Pandey, V. P. Singh”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157765114 EAN 9781157765110. [31]

“Atmospheric Scientists: Prem Chand Pandey, Andrew Crosse, Ken Caldeira, Robert Angus Smith, David Lary, Dennis Tirpak, James Russell III”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 115639841X EAN 9781156398418. [32]

I got these from the ashutoshau@gmail.com and hope wikipedia admin will never delete the article. This user have some time edited the page with any user name and interested in P C Pandey sir's Page. An advance thanks to admin if Pandey's article find stable notable article position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.245 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you say work on the matter on books having ISBN number based on wikipedia article [...] The below books are depends on wiki article please look on the matter. I find that very difficult to understand, but anyway you are drawing people's attention to books published by Books LLC that include material on Pandey. Well, Books LLC simply reprints stuff from Wikipedia. (This is legal, though it's unclear why any intelligent person would buy any.) What is your point here? -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Although the cleanup would have to be pretty much a fundamental rewrite (which is an argument for deletion, not against), deletion doesn't solve the problem here, which is (no offense intended) armies of en-0.5 WP newbies choosing quantity over quality, both in prose and in references. To me, the notability of the subject is beyond doubt. What this article needs is a lift over a certain threshold (say, C-class) from where one could make reverts with a summary like "no improvement of the article", combined with a handful of experienced editors placing it on their watchlists. Should the article survive, I would volunteer to clean it up. --Pgallert (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Google Scholar gives cites of 2, 1, 1 only. Why are these so small for a person who is claimed to have published 134 papers? What are WoS cites? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

'Make it a best wikipedia article by cleanup. Pandey is the best atmospheric scientist and his this article will make the wikipedia rich in atmospheric articles. Please read these link and books:

Atmospheric Scientists: Prem Chand Pandey, Andrew Crosse, Ken Caldeira, Robert Angus Smith, David Lary, Dennis Tirpak, James Russell III “Allahabad University: Allahabad University Alumni, Allahabad University Faculty, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Prem Chand Pandey, V. P. Singh”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Academics: Amartya Sen, Prem Chand Pandey, H. S. S. Lawrence, Suchitra Mitra, Jagadguru Rmabhadrcrya, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar'”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Science Writers: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Faculty: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Antarctic Program: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Meteorologists: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC,

Above books are available on these below web page

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indian-Meteorologists-Prem-Chand-Pandey/.../115621856X

http://www.indiaplaza.in/books/ISBN-115621856X.htm

http://www.ebooknetworking.net/books_detail-115621856X.html

http://www.thenile.com.au/books/.../Indian-Meteorologists-Prem-Chand-Pandey/

http://www.soundmedia.ch/.../llc-books/indian-meteorologists-prem-chand-pandey

http://www2.loot.co.za/shop/product.jsp?lsn=1156182395

http://www.flipkart.com/indian-antarctic-program-llc-books-book-1156182395

http://www.cdbox.it/cdbook/scheda_book.asp?zona=book&isbn... I hope hoary will cool his mind to see this. And the Image problem was solved by cleanup by any one which was good initiation to cleanup it and make effective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.148.22 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you say Please read these link and books and give a list of "books" published by Books LLC. I had already commented on the products of Books LLC. You also say Make it a best wikipedia article by cleanup. Who are you addressing? (Would you like to clean it up?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a winner of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology (the top award for research in india), meets WP:ANYBIO. But the article suffers from the attention of fanboys and needs a heavy pruning (I am willing to take a shot at it)--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, somebody who means business. I see you knocked off about twenty percent in about twenty minutes. Well done! -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup completed (whew!) Looking much better now. I have watchlisted the page and will (hopefully) prevent it from getting messed up again.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. You removed a large percentage of it, but what remains is pretty horrible. Keep going! One sample: The assertion "During 1997-2005, he was the founder-director of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa" is followed by fifteen footnotes. I can imagine reasons why one might not be sufficient, but not a reason why three or more would be needed. So which 13 or 14 should go? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC) ... reworded Hoary (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at the history of the article and the history of the AfD shows the contrary, that this AfD is cleanup. Or substantial cleanup, anyway. There's plenty more work to be done; would you care to join the effort? -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , clearly notable. Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep it as stable notable article~~. Dear Sodabottle and Hoary sir kindly improve the article for making it as notable. The person is back-bone of Indian Atmospheric and Ocean Science. I have taken n of the copy of Indian Meteorologist: Prem Chand Pandey from INFIBEAM's web page its very interesting to know him. He has done a lot for Indian Science and education. Much about him is he is founder director of any centre working on international level i.e. NCAOR. I request to Hoary sir to be humble and cool to stay the article on wikipedia, certainly it will rich encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis gp (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck, user already voted above. --Pgallert (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall endeavour to edit humbly and coolly, Louis gp. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is most notable, do not delete. I feel that louis gp's statement is correct and article is being improved by some one which is justice for this article. Thus I also thanks Sodabottle and Hoary for creative work. The India's great atmospheric scientist's article deletion is not good on the occasion of Indian Indepence day. Pandey is great scientist who directly and indirectly influences the world large scientific group. Let it be notable article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vppram (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Vppram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is clearly established; deletion request denied. Cleaning up has been done. Gandupada (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever do you mean "deletion request denied"??? You are not an admin and are not in a position to close this AfD and to "deny" the AfD nomination. You should also know that pretending to be an admin is a blockable offense. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe he just means that he disagrees with a request for deletion. And he wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. -- Cardinal Biggles 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, Cardinal Biggles. Gandupada (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "cleaning up" you mean cleaning, then it has been done but a lot more needs to be done. (Have you actually read it?) Just now I have removed three of four sources for the same assertion, and fixed the English in the fourth. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of canvassing clearly going on here, but little evidence of notability. I checked 2 more items to add to what Xxanthippe found. First, the subject's name is actually quite common and this article may be benefiting from some false-positive associations. However, WoS shows an h-index of about 3 (query = "Author=(Pandey PC) Refined by: Institutions=(INDIAN INST TECHNOL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI"). His IMS fellow status is also sketchy, for example the apparently official IMS page lists a "Dr. P.C. Pande" – unclear whether this is the same person. Finally, the weight of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is unclear – there's actually a template listing the winners, but almost all of them are still red-links. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- As the author of the above seems to be unfamiliar with the fact that Indian names are not English: how an Indian name is anglicised may vary, even in official documents. Variants like "Pandey"/"Pande" (or even "Panday") are common, so that's no argument. And yes, "Pandey" is a common surname. What does that show? Anuragi (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er...this is precisely why I said "unclear whether this is the same person". I think it's also fairly obvious that there are likely to be lots of false-positive hits for people with common surnames. In other words, such people usually appear to be more notable than what they actually are, unless we are duly diligent in removing false hits. Hope that explanation clarifies matters. Agricola44 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: By the way, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is annual award given by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India's largest Research and Development (R&D) organization. The above individual seems to have won it, this itself makes him notable! Thanks! Ekabhishek^talk 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this [33] source is to be relied upon the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology prize has been awarded 334 times up to 1998. Only 4 of its awardees (including this one) have Wikipedia articles about them so it seems that award of the prize does not make a compelling case for inclusion in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt. It is not sufficient for a researcher to publish work to obtain notability to Wikipedia's standards. To be notable one must have been extensively noted by peers. In the case of scientists it is particularly easy to assess this through the various databases of scholarly citations like Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus etc. Judging by the past records of these academic AfD pages the number of citations needed for notability here is 500-1000 and an h index of 10-15. This candidate has from Google scholar a total of 3 citations with an h index of 1 (Web of Science gives an h index of 3). These values are vastly below those required for notability and are among the smallest I have seen on these pages. There may be a reasonable explanation for the absence of citations; if there is it would be useful for editors to have it. Some of the supporting information is unsourced or of no value, like advertisements for the subject's book. I also see no evidence that the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is a highly prestigious award. I suspect that some of the non-SPA votes may have been snowed under by the vast amount of irrelevant information piled into the article. I advise salt because of the apparently many previous attempts there have been to recreate the article. I add that if persuasive contrary evidence on any of these matters is produced I will be willing to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. This person has founded two important research institutes, quite apart from his other achievements. Were he in the US, that alone would probably have been sufficient for "notability". To my mind, this discussion is suffering from a very Euro-/US-centric perspective, which is also evident from the remarks above. As an example, citation indices are not international, but Englisch language centric and heavily biased towards "western" publications. They are basically an instrument developed within the US academic structure and geared to this, but the sheer might of the US ensures that this bias is "internationalised". If we do go into notability debates, then we should have a level playing field. This person is notable in India, that's a fact. The question is, is that "international" enough? If this be denied, then I submit that a large part of the entries in the Wikipedia pertaining to scientists or the like in Europe or North America should be remove based on the same criteria. And in any case, he is certainly more notable than most thirdrate singers, actors or sports persons in the Wikipedia, if achievements are a yardstick. But, as an author whose name I unfortunately don't remember, remarked: "The moron who uses the moog synthesiser earns several thousand times more than the person who invented it." This seems, mutatis mutandis, applicable to "notability" too. Anuragi (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The shanti swarup Bhatnagar award is the highest official award for science in India. The award is presented personally by the prime minister of India. As with other awards with state patronage, whether the winners are selected because they are actually good at what they do becomes a side issue in this award - persons with political clout, persons who are actually administrators rather than researchers end up getting it sometimes. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every prize granted by a political authority may be misused; this also applies to Medals of Valor, or whatever. The important point is that the Bhatnagar award is awarded by the Indian Prime Minister, so that anyone who obtains it is obviously considered very notable. That alone should be enough to establish notability. Gandupada (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not only SSB Prize holder and Founder Director but given base to Polar science and Satellite oceanography in India. He played key role in CORAL, IIT Kharagpur and KBCAOS, Allahabad Universty. Seeing his contribution from Founder Head, Meteorology and Ocean Group divison, Space Application Centre/ISRO to Emeritus professor one can say that his this article page is deserved at notable one.
- Added in a set of edits, the last of which was 06:39, 17 August 2010 by User:Roseling, whose first contribution this was. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This AFD seems to be a mess, but the notability of the article's subject (per WP:N) is not close to questionable. Here are some verifiable facts, any one of which would make the subjact notable enough, under WP:PROF:

Founding director of the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa.
Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India,
Fellow of Indian Meteorological Society
Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences
Winner of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology in Earth Sciences, 1989

Here is the citation for the SSB Prize, which again establishes real world notabality.

Dr Pandey has made significant contributions to the development of the technique of microwave remote sensing from satellites for obtaining atmosphere and ocean surface parameters. His concept of combining microwaves with infrared derive cloud parameters has been widely acclaimed.

Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the BLP "has made significant contributions to the development of the technique of microwave remote sensing from satellites for obtaining atmosphere and ocean surface parameters. His concept ..... has been widely acclaimed" then why have these contributions in such an important area that is of interest all over the world not been mentioned by other scientists in the scientific literature? On the basis of the citation databases the subject's acclaim in the international scientific community seems to be minimal. There may be a perfectly sensible explanation for this discrepancy (for example, differences in name) and, if there is, it would be useful for editors to know it. Also, the sugestion that scientists working in India are prejudiced against by the citation databases is untenable. For example, Google Scholar searches for Indian scientists such as "S K Malik" or "E S R Gopal" (chosen from among those who have not received the prize) produce hundreds of citations. I add again that I am willing to reconsider my vote upon the presentation of sufficient evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I should add a note of clarification here. Both the scientists I mention above are Fellows of the Indian National Science Academy, which is India's premier science academy. The subject of the BLP does not appear to be a Fellow of that academy. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here is the reason for the apparent discrepancy: The subject publishes mainly using the name "PC Pandey" (not "Prem Chand Pandey"), a search for which is confounded by many similarly named researchers in distinct fields (example PC Pandey at IIT Bombay). Google's Citation Gadget, says that "PC Pandey" has 3353 publications and an h-index of 26, but that is simply GIGO! Scopus too fails to separate the Earth Science Pandey from others (furthermore its h-index is based only on post 1995 publications, and miss a substantial bulk of the subject's publications). FWIW, the best way I have found to roughly isolate the subject from others' is through such a Google Scholar Search (you'll note that most, though not necessarily all, hits seem to be in the subjects area of interest).

Of course, we are lucky in this instance since we have independent reliable sources telling us that the subject has "has made significant contributions ..." and is "widely acclaimed". So though it is personally disappointing that we are unable to quote the exact publication number, reliable h-index etc for P.C. Pandey, the notability per wikipedia criterion (namely WP:PROF) is pretty much settled IMO. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your remarks are very helpful. As I surmised, the form of the name is an issue. When I carry out your Google Scholar search in the appropriate topic area I find citations of 19, 13, 11, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5.... giving an h index of 7. While better than before, this is below the usual bar to assure routine notability according to WP:Prof #1. For a national award one would expect several thousand citations. It would be useful if somebody could do a full search on WoS as its data goes back to before the start of the subject's career (of course, this should have been done by the authors of the article). I am afraid that I do not share your faith in the infallibility of government committees as arbiters of scientific achievement. Scientific achievement is assessed by other scientists, and they make their views known in the form of citations. In this case citations appear to be somewhat lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as notable and stop discussion about the validity of the article. He is a famous worldwide noble researcher/scientist/ emritus professour at india's prestigious IIT. His contribution in the field of satellite oceanography, polar science and current burning issue of climate change. He has promoted several young scientist in the field of satellite oceanography, polar science and climate change. He is a pillar of atmopsheric and ocean science in India. Indian Government awared him the most valuable prize in the field of science " Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award" and Uttar Pradesh Government " Vigyan Ratan". He is honoured as a " Proud Past Alumini" by the Allahabad University Alumini Association registered under scociety act 1860 registration number (407/2000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sus 1980 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — Sus 1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the discussion close and remain it as notable article for enclyclopedia. Professor Pandey is SSB Prize holder which is highest scientific awards in Indian Science field and he is also Founder Director of a centre whose functioning is only possible by International MoU thus his contribution is itself prestigious in nature. He is a pace-maker to Polar science and Satellite oceanography in India. The CORAL, IIT Kharagpur found an Important height by his direction although he is no head. KBCAOS, Allahabad University generated Atmospheric and ocean science department in Allahabd University because of his founding by NCAOR Project mode starting. He apart from above is Founder Head, Meteorology and Ocean Group divison, Space Application Centre/ISRO and NASA research Associate who got award from NASA for his contribution.Thus I can say strongly that in India he is hero of Atmospheric and Ocean Science. I have seen many article is running on wikiedia page having much less contribution to the Science. Thus his this article page is certainy benifite to the common people as well as scientific people. I say and request to wikipedia cmmunity to make it notable forever with no future dispute or discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.119.98 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

’’’ Strongly valid article for wikipedia’’’. It is hidden matter that Professor Pandey is in Shanti swarup Bhatnagar Award committee of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology in Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean & Planetary Sciences since long time not only Bhatnagar Awardee in the field. If these, Anil Bhardwaj, and P N Vinayachandran are notable article for wikipedia then why Professor Prem Chand Pandey not? This suitable article will enrich the atmospheric science. The every words written at the Indian Time 10.51 AM, 18-08-2010 in the article is correct,valid and essential for emphasis his work in the field. I strongly recommend the article for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another new editor. Splendid! (Or almost new, as one day previously you had voted --or in quaint Wikipedia jargon, "!voted" -- here.) How can the every words written in the article be correct, valid and essential, when (just to take one humdrum example) we are told Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India, of Indian Meteorological Society,[17][18] and Indian Academy of Sciences? The first assertion of fellowship has no source, or maybe one source or even two (one would have to check, and rephrase accordingly); the second has two sources (or so it seems); and the third has none. This is not a suitable article, it's a crappy article. Thanks to a small number of editors, Sodabottle easily preeminent among them, it's just a lot less crappy than it was when I nominated it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
’’’article is best one and suitable for encyclopedia in the present form when I giving my view’’’. not only Anil Bhardwaj, and P N Vinayachandran in Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean & Planetary Sciences but also in Engineering Science, Mathematical Science, Physical Science|, biological Science, Chemical Science, Medical Science there are many scientific Indian person’s article running strongly based on SSB award. Dear Hoary and wikipedia administration please close the matter as now P C Pandey’s article in wikipedia till my comment is very suitable article for encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila pk (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Article Keep it for ever. Dear Hoary, I have added the Fellow official reference of both Academy in the Article and you can also see here:^[2]^[3]^[4]. I hope such person who is fellow of both academy and IMS, Bhatnagar Awardee and Founder Director of a world known Instite is notable in every way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk • contribs) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
’’’ Now Article is Perfect Notable’’’. The article is present form can say as most notable for wikipedia. Dear Hoary, why the article is not suitable if your comment of fellow reference have now answered by Roseling. If this article is not notable and entry is so hard then many running article is also not worthy to get entry in the wikipedia which have got entry already. I want to say that the discussion should close and matter resolve by “keeping the Article on wikipedia page for ever”.
- Added at 07:33, 18 August 2010 by User:Louis gp.
- I said that the article was a mess and brought up one humdrum example. Roseling seems to have fixed that example. Well, that's an improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability clear from sources. AfD should not be for cleanup or insulting articles and our encylopedia's contributers. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
'The article is notable one in the present condition. Its looks that wikipedia's policy is to cleanup a article by nomination for deletion. Now article has been cleanuped therefore stop the discusion on deletion and keep the artcle. I hope the wikipedia administration is also agree on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.80.234 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, IP, Wikipedia policy is not to clean up an article by nominating it for deletion. Actually Wikipedia policy is to delete ("speedily", i.e. immediately) any article that's essentially a re-creation of one deleted earlier via an "AfD" such as this. So strict adherence to Wikipedia policy would have led me to delete this without any discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Quite clear from discussion the Article is notable’’’. Dear Hoar if P. N. Vinayachandran is notable then why Professor Pandey not if he also Bhatnagar Awardee^[5]^[6] and a founding Director. I am seeing in the discussion of this page that a mass entry is along with the article and against the deletion therefore conclusion i.e. keep article as notable needed immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason why P. N. Vinayachandran is notable is that he has a high citation record in Google Scholar, having cites of 938, 78, 72,64... with an h index of 17. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Roseling, the comments here signed by you (contribs), by Akhila pk (contribs) and by Louis gp (contribs) seem to me to have a curious resemblance to each other: (a) marking off text with ’’’ rather than ''', and (b) a reluctance to sign (with ~~~~). Would the resemblance be merely coincidental? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Obvious keep it Notable without any further discussion’’’. No, Hoary my independent thought on article by comparing with number of other article on wikipedia is that the “deletion is a partiality with the article” and you only is behind the deletion, and also stretching more and more. The more unnecessary discussion on the article having present form is not praise worthy any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable: Notability have no questtion.Sources say that Founding Director Pandey is famous scientist all over India and he is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another brand new editor! Welcome! You say that "Sources say that Founding Director Pandey is famous scientist all over India and he is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science" (my emphasis). This is splendid news. Which sources? -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Notable article’’’. Dear Hoary sources are from Indian and International Atmospheric and Ocean Scientist especially in Polar Science. Are you really interested in discussion? if yes, then a scientist and academician who is SSB Prize holder, fellow of two National Science academy, fellow of IMS, Fellow of Society of Earth Science India ^[7], Editorial Board of national and international Journals. Founder HOD of MOG, SAC/ISRO, Founder of NCAOR, Founder of KBCAOS,IIDS, UoA and play key role in establishment of CORAL, IIT Kharagpur also then how he is not notable?. You are blindly opposing the article in this stage and want to delete it. Are you want to seek secret of his personal life? Perhaps you are biased person by nature, if you not accepting it as notable article. I do not say more than this and will never take part in discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You claimed that "Sources say that Founding Director Pandey [...] is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science". Asked to specify the sources, you fail to do so. I am not interested in Pandy's personal life. I'm not even keen to have the article deleted. (I could have legitimately deleted it several days ago.) I infer that Pandey is a scientist of some note (and not, say, a would-be reality show contestant). If I were Pandey, I'd be embarrassed by the multiply-signed puffery on my behalf. -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still claim it Notable. I will not give any answer if you are not telling why P. N. Vinayachandran is notable and P C Pandey is not notable. I am providing you the few source who know well about Pandey’s work, these are: T.N. Krishnamurti, FSU ^[8], Jagadish Shukla ^[9], Shailesh Naik ^[10], Prof. B.N. Goswami^[11], Prof. J. Srinivasan^[12], Prof. Roddam Narasimha,FRS^[13], Surendra N Tewari^[14], Avijit Gangopadhyay^[15], All member of Meteorology and Oceanography Group, SAC^[16]. This is your need to ask every individual about Professor Pandey. Thanks for your wide heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- using the standards commonly applied at AfD discussions regarding academics, this person is not notable: the extent of published work and the attention it has received are clearly insufficient to warrant an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted earlier, this AfD is a mess. But he appears to pass both WP:PROF#C2 (an award that is supposedly the highest science award in India) and #C3 (Indian national science academy), and the article has been significantly improved since its nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are problems with both the above arguments. The citation for the award of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology states (see above) that the contribution of the subject "has been widely acclaimed", but the citation record with a GS h index = 7 and a WoS h index of 3 (see above), show that his contributions have hardly been noticed. This raises questions about the validity of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology. However recent awardees like P. N. Vinayachandran have the excellent citation record that is expected. Things may have changed in the 20 years since the award was made to the subject but in view of these questions it may be best if recipients of the award were judged on those of their achievements external to the award. In the present case the citation record of the subject falls well below what would be considered to be the minimum standard for notability under WP:Prof #1.

As for academy membership, it is to be noted that the subject does not appear to be a member India's highest science academy the Indian National Science Academy modelled on the Royal Society which, in view of the prize, may be telling.

I would normally prefer to pass over matters such as those above in silence, but because of the aggressive intervention of the fanboys in this AfD debate I think it is necessary to address them. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I think it is not helpful to be quoting again and again a Web of Science h-score of 3 when this has been calculated - as so often in these debates - erroneously. It has been done excluding Institutions=SPACE APPLICAT CTR OR CALTECH NATL CTR ANTARCTIC & OCEAN RES JET PROP LAB , NATL INST OCEANOG, ANTARCT STUDY CTR OR INDIA SPACE RES ORG ) etc etc inclusion of these would I think substantially increase the WoS h-index (but it is still low - my guess would be around 7 (but it is a bit tricky to calculate)). The aggression seems to me to be coming more from those wishing to delete (I think those wishing to delete articles need to be aware or sensitive to the authors and the subjects of biographies - to be arguing someone is not notable and to do so politely is difficult ). And the attacks on Indian National Science bodies and their awards also seems a little awkward and impolite. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

More Web of Science data would certainly be welcome but it should be pointed out that the number of BLPs with h indices under 10 that have been found to be notable under WP:Prof #1 is very small, if any. Standards are higher than they used to be, even a couple of years ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Notable. Professor Pandey is a famous scientist and establishment expert of science institution in India for example, MOG division, SAC/ISRO, NCAOR/MOES, KBCAOS and key role in establishment of CORAL, IIT Kharagpur. He is SSB Prize Holder, NASA Recognization and Cass Award Holder(one of the IEEE's old paper in which his biography is publishes not available on line at present) and many other scientific award. He is Fellow of two best academi which itself made him notable. He is fellow of two main body(society) of Indian Earth Science fied. Apart from these as Indias Atmospheric and Ocean Science is near about 60 year old only, Pandey is the person who started to work on upper atmosphere satellies first time and made polar remote sensing his own field in India first time. This made him founder director of Indias First Polar Science Institution. Seeing his speciallities in so many field with help of microwave field primary research in D.Phil. from Allahabad University, I can say he has done best for human being specially in India. His notable point is that he always encourage the younger scientist to do the effort for best science. India one can not remain to escape with his influence if he belongs with SAC, NCAOR, INCOIS, NIO, and Atmospheric and ocean science centres and Institution. Multi-Institutional work of logistic support for Antarctic expedition of 9 year made his familiar among laarge group of scientific person of India and world. Thanks in advance if wikipedia think him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.122.5 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claim of anything this person has discovered or how this person has advanced science. As such, his ability to advance within academia is his country is of no encyclopedic value. All the awards are in-house; the National Academy of Sciences, India is located in the same city as this person, and is not the main national academy of India. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on his Contributions: I think the article used to claim several discoveries and scientific advances which our Professor contributed to. Eg in the deleted copywrite section we had:

* Tsunami Travel Time Prediction using Neural Networks

* A new approach of Ocean Parameter Retrieval using Neural Networks

* Development of a comprehensive Ocean Atlas for Indian Ocean using ARGO data

Also a survey of other winners of his awards and the National Academy of Sciences, India indicate these are not in house awards or an in house institution. Winners of the awards and members of this Academy are, according to my reading, notable scientists from all across India. The fact that we don't have so many entries for Indian scientists is because our encylopedia is not finished yet - not because they are not so notable.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "the deleted copywrite section" but anyway here is the article at its most verbose stage; if you can retrieve lucid, reliably sourced information from it, feel free to readd it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this information:

Copyright No. SW-3195/2006 dated 07-09-2006 on ‘Tsunami Travel Time Prediction using Neural Networks’ by Rahul Barman, B. Prasad Kumar, P.C. Pandey and S.K. Dube, IIT Kharagpur
Copyright No. SW-3529/2007 dated19 June 2007,on “A new approach of Ocean Parameter Retrieval using Neural Networks” by Rahul Burman, B. Prasad Kumar, P. C. Pandey, and S..K. Dube, IIT, Kharagpur
Copyright No. L-30729/2008 dated 18 June 2008 “Development of a comprehensive Ocean Atlas for Indian Ocean using ARGO data,” Rahul Burman, Prasad Kumar Bhaskran, Prem Chand Pandey, Shishir Kumar Dube, (IIT,Kharagpur) Ravi Chandran and Shailesh Naik (INCOIS, Hyderabad).

But I don't know if adding it would help. My guess it might help convince some deleters - but annoy other deleters and I don't know if it was removed to improve the article or... Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the notion of numbered copyrights. They look vaguely like patents. If they are copyrights, I'd like an explanation. If they are patents, I wonder why somebody has the energy to write them up but not the energy to look up the word he's after in a dictionary that translates into English. (If this were an isolated example of wrong wording, of course I'd overlook it. But it isn't.) And of course patents come by the squillion; if these are patents, they may be remarkable and they may be utterly humdrum; it would be good to see independent references to them that might suggest that they weren't utterly humdrum. -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ http://www.desertexposure.com/200805/200805_scat.php
^ "Felow, National Academy of Sciences, India, Allahabad". P C Pandey is Fellow in official web page of Academy, Allahabad
^ "Fellow, India Academi of Science, Bangalore". P C Pandey is fellow in official web page of the Academy, Bnagalore
^ "Fellow, Indian meteorological Society". P C pandey is fellow in official web page of IMS, New Delhi-110003
^ “1989: Prem Chand Pandey is SSB Prize winner.". Dr. Pandey is Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award winner in India. This document is unsourced. Xxanthippe
^ “1989: Prem Chand Pandey is SSB Prize winner”. Dr. Pandey is Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award winner in India. This document is blank in my browser (Firefox). Xxanthippe
^ “list of IES Fellows The Society of Earth Scientists”. Prem Chand Pandey is Fellow of Society of Earth Science India
^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ [9]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad El-Nemr

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

High school football player with no evidence for further notability; user removed the prod tag DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject played football in high school, graduated, and continued on to play football in college. His major is business administration. I know several young men living the same life. It appears that he is on the right path to establish notability in either the sports arena or business. Maybe we'll see him again in five to ten years. Until then, he has not yet established notability to support inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet the measure of notability that we require here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ciulla

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

Academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Hudson Educational Services, the company he is CEO of, appears to be a small-scale tutoring service that is not itself notable, let alone conferring any notability on Ciulla. Google news archive finds no relevant hits. This article was prodded, but deprodded again by its creator. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teh article does not explain why he is considered notable. –Moondyne 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Rose Riehle

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Contested prod. I don't want to repeat myself, so I've helpfully linked my prod rationale. Essentially, the article fails to meet WP:BABY. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since WP:BABY is empty, I'd say it passes. :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A set of sequential numbers does not a Wikipedia article make. LiteralKa (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere enough notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely being born at an unusual time is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the news organisations that have covered it because it is amusing and/or local, not because it is newsworthy. Hut 8.5 11:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no indication of notability and Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable in any sense of the word. LiteralKa (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does it make me notable if I expell someone out of my vagina on September 10th 2011 at 12:13 PM? No Dr pepper for life (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BABY does not exist, and the baby is very cute. Also, LiteralKa, please be aware of WP:CANVAS; advertising this article in a public IRC room is in violating this policy. Thanks. Harry (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The whole privacy issue concerns me here. This child's parents may have chosen to expose her to the media, but that doesn't mean she's going to be excited about having an article on one of the world's most popular websites when she's old enough to hear about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neat trivia, but not notable. Şłџğģő 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SluggoOne S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just one of around three hundred thousand born on this date. East of Borschov 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: outside the USA, her date of birth expressed in the conventional numerical forms is unremarkable. For example, where I am, it's 09/08/10 at 11:12 PM EDT; in Japan (Gregorian calendar assumed), it's 10/08/09 at 11:12 PM EDT.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and the fact that her "interest" isn't even interesting outside the US and places which do month-day-year. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to hear the author's take on the page. LiteralKa (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that you've reduced it to a mere one line, my "take" on it is moot since consensus is going to be to delete the article. Whose Your Guy (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it to one line because the rest was trivia, nobody really cares if the parents won't forget the date. This is an encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable because of merely beeing born?! WP:BLP1E is also very clear here regarding the news beside that the media response is actually rather limited. I am also sure that there are a lot of other different dates and times with a certain mathemetical, sequential, astronomical or even religious meaning. So there is no point to have an article for every baby born on such a "special" time. Testales (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Davis (basketball)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basketball as this is a high school player who has not competed at the highest professional/amateur level. --moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references about him and everything and he is a notable basketball recruit for Kentucky. He and his family have been in the news a lot lately over the accusations that his dad wanted money for him to commit to a school. I dont see why this would be nominated for deletion and Michael Gilchrist wouldn't. Multiple articles have been allowed to stay even while the person was still in High School. Ex: Michael Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes, and Brandon Knight (basketball). Also there were similar discussions for other athletes that had the articles stay. EX: Arthur Brown, Tre` Newton, Kyle Prater, and Perry Jones. Ice (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael Gilchrist was much less notable (see Gilchrist AfD) than Anthony Davis, but when the article was up for deletion it was kept with a consensous. There is national coverage for Davis including ESPN, the Chicago Sun-Times, and Rivals.com. Ice (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear nominator, read the "Basic criteria" first on the guideline you refer to, as it and WP:NOTE apply first, and this clearly passes on that level. Doesn't matter if it was a third grader, if the media wants to cover it, then it is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable through all of his national coverage from ESPN and other major places. 68.186.14.57 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 68.186.14.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I have made multiple edits around wikipedia so I dont know why it just lists todays edits. 68.186.14.57 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reason the article should be kept is that WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE, which I guess is what the person a couple posts above me was saying. Ice (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."

The theshold for significant coverage independent of the subject has not been met. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you are misinterpreting "independent". All of the article's sources are independent of the subject. "Independent" means that the source originates for a third-party not associated with the subject. Since you are quoting from WP:GNG, let me quote the relevant section for you: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. None of the references fall into any of these excluded categories of sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of living centenarians

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

Redundant content fork of Lists of centenarians. As opposed to List of living supercentenarians, which in itself is a questionable list, but only has ~150 people at any time, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them (according to one estimate, 450,000), 99% of which are not notable per WP:GNG. If we're just talking about notable centenarians, then this is already adequately covered by the above lists. Canadian Paul 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR, indiscriminate list, cannot be maintained or is otherwise redundant with existing articles.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per CP. Lugnuts (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though made in good faith, the premises of the nomination aren't correct. The list is not redundant to Lists of centenarians, which has separate lists of musicians, politicians, athletes, etc. who, for the most part, died after the age of 100 (though there are some on there who are still alive); and it's limited to those persons who (a) have articles on Wikipedia ("for reasons other than their longevity") (b) are over the age of 100 and (c) are still alive, so there's no merit to the suggestion that there will be "literally hundreds of thousands" of people on the list. There seems to be no objection to the concept of lists of notable centenarians in general. Mandsford 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've worked on these lists for over two years, so know all about what these lists contain, including that every person on the living list is somewhere in the others. They aren't intended to cover mainly dead people, it's just the majority of notable people in history who have reached the age of 100 are dead now. As for the notability, I must have missed that sentence in the intro, which is strange given that it's copied from the other pages. but that's a good start. I liken this to List of NHL players... we have all the names of NHL players in separate lists, and then sub-articles based on defining characteristics of players. All of these divisions, with the potential exception of List of players who played only one game in the NHL, are not transient characteristics. All NHL players were alive at one time and all will eventually be dead, so it's irrelevant to being a NHL player. The same goes here... being alive or dead is trivial, in the sense that it is irrelevant to their notability (whereas, for example, being a Middle Eastern hockey player is a relatively rare occurrence, so it may be argued that their ethnic background is relevant to their career... not that I would, but I can see how it would be). Anyways, I know, WP:WAX et al., but I just wanted to clarify something I felt was lacking in my rationale. Canadian Paul 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it trivial, particularly with someone up in the years. When one is talking about a famous and elderly person, there is an interest in verifying that the person is alive and well. For whatever reason, people are uncomfortable about not being certain whether someone is still alive, and feel even more uncomfortable about admitting to their uncertainty by asking that question. One might see Bob Newhart on TV or on film and wonder, "Is he still living?" (he's 80, and yes, he's still alive); one might see Betty White in a TV show alongside Bea Arthur, Estelle Getty and Rue McClanahan -- we know Betty is alive and well, but are the others... no, no and (relatively recently), no. I think that interest would be even stronger with well-known people who have reached 100, since there's that expectation that they could be gone very suddenly. In this instance, I think there's even more of the learning experience in, "Geez, I didn't know they were THAT old". Mandsford 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having this list all in one place can be helpful for research. Yes, the information -- at least each individual piece of it -- is redundant with the other lists, but so what? There are plenty of data which appear in more than one place. But this is the only page which can answer the question about which notable living people have reached the age of 100. Ma^t_chups 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma^t_chups 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the predecessor of this list was split it was nearly 200k which led to prompts for its deletion on the basis of being too large! Resurrecting it is not feasible for that reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 13:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Open-ended, constantly changing, sourcing issues galore. This might make fodder for a swell dedicated website, but this list is the most ephemeral thing imaginable, since deaths and additions are a daily occurrence. Comically incomplete. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite a daily occurrence when it comes to notable people. There aren't that many notable persons who will be turning 100 years old this year, see 1910#Births. The living ones are the ones that don't have "d." and a year. Sourcing is a no-brainer-- many biographies include the date of birth, and there's a time-tested mathematical formula for determining how old a person is. Hang in there, Dorothea Tanning, we're all rootin' for ya. Mandsford 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hard to maintain is not a reason to delete, all of Wikipedia is hard to maintain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its repetitive list, completely agree with Canadian Paul's Argument --Tommieboi (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're not going to run out of paper. It makes sense to have lists separated in a way that users would find useful. One of those is by reason of notability, and another important one is by living/deceased. I also agree with many of Mandsford's points. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. long running consensus is that the register is not a RS so the argument that this fails to pass GNG appears well founded Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VirtuaGirl

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

Non-notable. Many, many similar adult software programs in the years prior to and after the release of this one. Article reads like an advertisement. One article used as a "reference" is a one word mention. I'm taking it on good faith that the author's intent was not spam/advertisement but it unintentionally borders on it. Original article's author/creator immediately removed tag for discussion of deletion so I've moved it here. Qfonchey (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, this article is only 3 days old (at the time of the AfD nomination), has 2 reliable sources, and is still a stub. Second, VirtuaGirl is notable in being one of the first adult screensavers. Which "adult software programs" do what VirtuaGirl does that came out before 1998? I can think of one other that came out around the same time, Oska Software's Tahni DeskMate[34] (though Oska the koala bear was first in August 1998, but he's not adult-oriented). VirtuaGirl is more explicit. Curious that you made a Wikipedia account just to nominate this article for deletion... —Eekerz ^(t) 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those just joining this discussion, let me point out that Eekerz is the creator of the article nominated for deletion. Many virtually identical sex software programs have been speedily deleted from Wikipedia over the years. As I mentioned before, one of the references you cite basically just lists the title of the game in the article. The other is almost a decade old from a technology site that is well known for their use of sarcasm in articles. The first article you cite even points out that there are literally "reams" of programs like this one and points you to a web site that lists even more. Its actually a source citing how ubiquitous the program was and is. Also, even though you've listed it as freeware, its actually switch and bait: you have to pay to "upgrade" it. Most legitimate freeware sites don't accept this definition of freeware. To quote VirtuaGirl's own site: "The...software allows VirtuaGirl to convert a much higher percentage of affiliate traffic and the combination of a monthly service or ticket-based business model promotes repeat purchases at a variety of price points to maximize the total revenue potential of each referred client." ...hardly free, more of a marketing scam, and not a program Wikipedia should be drawn into promoting or legitimizing. As for your comment "you made a Wikipedia account just to nominate this article for deletion", I've been making contributions to Wikipedia for some time, this was the first time that I needed an account name to complete a submission. One of the reasons I avoided getting an account name was just to avoid that kind of personal attack. My disagreement with your articles worthiness has nothing to do with you...I have no idea who you are or want to know. Please don't take my nomination as a personal attack and respond again with another personal dig. Qfonchey (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (especially from Wired Magazine) that even mentions the program is still legitimate as a way to substantiate the claim of the program's existence, for example. If a program is ubiquitous then that's even more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia to reflect the program's popularity (and not promote it commercially but encylopedically). Freeware does not just refer to completely free software. Also, if you don't have the guts to back your nomnination with a legitimate credible account, it's hard to take you seriously, and it does seem like you're trying to take a shot at my contributions to Wikipedia which I make an effort to reliably source. —Eekerz ^(t) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eekerz says: "you don't have the guts to back your nomnination (sic) with a legitimate credible account, it's hard to take you seriously". From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Qfonchey (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the coverage revealed by Google News. Seems to satisfy general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising for freeware pornographic screensaver. Just because it's free doesn't change the fact that it's advertising... Carrite (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising; it's simply an article about a software application, like the hundreds, if not thousands of other software application articles (and, especially, the hundreds of adult video games)--and any article about any commercial product--on Wikipedia. —Eekerz ^(t) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I count five links in the article under "External Links". All of them go to sites that sell VirtuaGirl or a rebranded variation. Three are "official" sites and two are sites that resell VirtuaGirl as an affiliate. That seems like very aggressive advertising to me. Qfonchey (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the external links are official websites for each product, common in Wikipedia articles about commercial products. The other 2 links are reviews. Someone else added the Rabbits Reviews site but I added the VirtuaGirlReview site because it reviews the actual models used in VirtuaGirl. Just because these review sites also have links to the product are secondary. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention price or promote purchasing the product in any way. —Eekerz ^(t) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may be the greatest sites in the world for all I know, but getting paid to (re)sell and/or review a product you write about by the company whose product you are reviewing is not a standard ethical journalism practice because of the obvious conflict of interest. Qfonchey (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create an affiliate link--even with a negative review. —Eekerz ^(t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete. I changed my vote because aside of The Register, I can not find any relevant GNews hits and also no other coverage in RS. The reference to the Wired Magazine only proves the freeware claim but is limited to a single sentence which adds nothing to the notability: "At Adult Game Reviews, there are reams of freeware games like strip poker, Smutropolis and VirtuaGirl where naked women will pop up on your screen. ". There seem also to be no further mentions of that site there. So only the nearly 10 years old article of The Register remains. I am not a fan of deletion but there seem to be no sources that confirm a particular notability of that software, even if it is somewhat special. I've removed my ealier statement and the related offtopic comments to it. Testales (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is in the fact that there even is a 10-year-old article about this adult-oriented program. What other adult program is still being developed after 10+ years? Quite notable indeed. —Eekerz ^(t) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the follow up to that article a week later by the same magazine [35] is an explanation to their readers about how they can delete the spyware that VirtuaGirl installed on their computers. Qfonchey (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to take it out of context: "Fortunately, [VirtuaGirl's "spyware" is] not malicious. It simply queries when you last ran VirtuaGirl, where and how you last started it and whether you have registered the software or not. This is standard enough and will not affect you and (hopefully) not cause you to receive emails from dodgy outlets." Do you have a personal vendetta against VirtuaGirl or something, Qfonchey? You sure are working hard to get this article deleted... Why don't you be more constructive and try to find references for the 280,000+ unreferenced articles and leave the articles that actually have references alone? Sheesh... —Eekerz ^(t) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, to quote Testales "there seem to be no sources that confirm a particular notability of that software". A link to an article that uses the word VirtuaGirl once, and then only to point out that it is one of many similar adult games, is not a claim to notability. In fact, it is a strong argument for non-notability. To quote Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As for the spyware, let me get this straight. According to VirtuaGirl's web site it's a "free software" program except that it charges you an annual fee to buy it, and it is "spyware free", except that it installs registry edits that track how and when you use the program and reports your user information to a site called "geishalounge.com"? Eekerz says: "Do you have a personal vendetta..." Please, as I've asked you repeatedly before, stop making up motives and attacking me personally. I'd never even heard of you or your program until I stumbled across it on Wikipedia. I don't question your motives for defending your article. Qfonchey (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you personally, Qfonchey; stop assuming I am. I simply question your motives for nominating this article when adequate notability with credible, reliable, 3rd-party references has been provided. You, and others, simply refuse to accept the references that establish notability. Not my problem. —Eekerz ^(t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands, no real indication of notability. If someone adds some proper coverage, I might reconsider. (I'm not planning to take part in the SPA argument - let's keep to the article.) Peridon (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like it, but there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has already been established as described above and references used in the article. —Eekerz ^(t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in Wired and the Register and elsewhere are light-weight, and not enough for WP:N. With current sources, the article doesn't look like growing beyond a stub. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakı

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

The article is superfluous. There already exists an article covering this subject, see rakia. Barababa (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion, the rakia name has been chosen as a compromise and is used as the de facto standard on Wikipedia. However, a duplicate and very turk-oriented article under the name of raki has popped up.

Since there already exists a Wikipedia page for this drink, the raki-page should be removed. It is superfluous and doesn't follow a neutral POV. Also, the article contains very little information that isn't already in the rakia article. What little information it does contain, should be moved.

I propose that the raki article is deleted and that the search term raki starts redirecting towards rakia, just like "rakija" does. Barababa (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existing since 2003-07-29 06:47:47 is a rather odd definition of "just popped up". Moreover deletion, and AFD, form no part of the article merger process for duplicate articles. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Rakia was created as a redirect to the already existing article Rakı (then named "Raki"). I could not find the "much discussion" leading to the conclusion that the name "rakia" should be used for rakı. As noted by Uncle G, deletion is in any case not the way to deal with such a naming issue (and also not with POV issues). While I'm not opposed in principle to a merge, please consider that Rakı is already longer than the whole Rakia article, so it would rather be an issue of merging "what little information" the latter article contains to Rakı. 85.101.100.220 (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Rakia is unreferenced in comparison to the article Raki which is at least referenced!! Also, the same Barababa placed a deletion tag on Rakia on Aug 6[36] , then removed it[37]!! Which gives the impression not of concern for notability, but something more personal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, it gave the impression that a novice editor, 21 edits into xyr editing career and unfamiliar with article merger, accidentally nominated the wrong article for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'm a new editor and still a bit unfamiliar with everything. The two articles should in any case be merged since they deal with the same drink. While it is true that the raki article does have more references, the rakia article is factually correct and the information presented (except for perhaps origin) is not controversial. I'll see if I can add some references in the next couple of days. I do not have anything personal against the raki article, I do however think that it is a bit one sided towards Turkey. For example this dictionary states that raki is "a brandy of Turkey and the Balkans". (http://www.yourdictionary.com/raki this one says the same thing http://www.21food.com/showroom/48934/product/Trakia-Brandy---Rakia.html) The raki article gives off the impression that it is purely a turkish drink and this is not the case. The reason I proposed that the raki article be merged into the rakia article, and not the other way around, is because the rakia article is in it's current version more neutral and is hence easier to work with. Barababa (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion does not belong here, but let me state for the record that it is not obvious that rakia and rakı are "the same drink". Rakia is not "a drink" but rather a family of drinks, a quite generic class of fruit brandies, made from all kinds of fruit, often plums or apricots, often sweet, and rarely flavoured with aniseed. Turkish rakı is never made from plums or apricots but mostly from molasses – in which case it is not a fruit brandy at all – and otherwise almost always from a grape pomace, is never sweet, and always flavoured with aniseed. Albanian raki, in spite of the similar name, is quite different from modern Turkish rakı. --Lambiam 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lambiam is right. Rakı is an aniseed-flavored grape distillate based beverage, when rakia/rakija is just the name of fruit brandy in Balkan peninsula countries. Thus these two are not related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.85.1 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete this article, then it should be redirected to Arak, not to Rakia.Eregli bob (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why was this relisted? Everyone who gave an opinion (except nominator) argued for Keep, and nominator argued for Redirect. The choice is not between Delete and Keep but between Merge and Don't merge; no one disputed that. --Lambiam 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republicrat

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this needs a renomination. The first nomination was speedy-kept because it was made by an indef-blocked user. The only references are GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS. Will the stupidity never end? Anyway, I did some digging and the only hits I found for this term were trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a definition of a portmanteau, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some extremely tenuous pop-culture references and some google search results may demonstrate that these terms get used - but they don't add up to any actual notability from the point of view of an encyclopedia. All the attempts at making this encyclopedic in the article seem to be unsalvageably original research unless there's some substantial coverage I'm missing. The sourceable content of this article doesn't seem to extend much beyond what one would expect in a dictionary. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see the notability of this article, nor do I see how Google search results are valid under WP:RS. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY comes to mind as well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to nominate this myself, but I was too much on the fence. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search results sourcing is a fixable problem, as demonstrated, and thus not a relevant issue. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, keep. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I use the term myself, but this is essentially a dictionary definition in the final analysis. Neologism. Carrite (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary - It could become Encyclopeda ready in future

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary it (and the variations mentioned as alternative titles) - there's nothing substantive here as far as I can see, just a description of a word, its definition and usage. TheGrappler (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent rescue by Uncle G in current version, per The Heymann Standard, per WP:N and WP:RS, and by Erpert's change to a Keep vote. I strongly urge the closer to consider the changes made during the discussion that address the nominator's argument as well as the wikitionary and delete arguments. The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang is from an unimpeachable publisher. The article could use pruning, but that's cleanup, not AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Medicinal

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

I was unable to find significant critical or scholarly coverage of this episode. The only reliable source with significant coverage I could find was the one cited in the article from the AV Club section of The Onion. I do not believe this article passes the notability guidelines. Odie5533 (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete In general, The Onion is CLEARLY not appropriate as a reliable source. However, I have seen AV Club reviews used as citations in multiple articles- perhaps the community has determined that that particular section meets the requirements for reliable sourcing in regards to commentary about current popular media? If anyone can point to a discussion(s) where that has been determined to be the will of the community, I would change to "keep"Active Banana (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the AV Club to be a reliable source. See their FAQ at http://www.avclub.com/about/. However, I do not consider a single review in AV Club section of The Onion to be sufficient notability to receive a scholarly and encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an episode article was deleted on the grounds that the AV Club review by itself was insufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story of Lando Freeman. Obviously as the nominator in that AFD i concur with that assessment. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klopman diamond

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced fanwank and OR. Can't possibly be sourced besides Evanier's blog. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added [38] as a possible source to show the fact that the joke doesn't originate from just Garfield & Friends show, although I can agree that the leading paragraph should be expanded and/or rewritten. Ezhuks (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Baseball Bugs and User:Richardcavell in this article's previous AFD. This joke predates the Garfield & Friends show; it was part of Myron Cohen's act in the 1960s, and the way he told the joke it was probably a folk tradition before that. It has been reproduced in books (see the book search in the Find sources header), newspapers (see the gnews archive search), and multiple TV shows. Any cultural meme that is influential enough to withstand the test of time and transmit itself into multiple unrelated media formats is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Théâtre Illuminata

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

Non-notable book series; could find literally no independent sourcing about these books except a passing mention in the Seattle Times. MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first part of the cycle, the book "Eyes Like Stars", was reviewed by the New York Times. Additionally, it was shortlisted for the Andrew Norton Award, see an interview concerning the book at the website of Nebula Awards. I can't find any independent sources for the second part, "Perchance to Dream". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have gutted the article of all the spam, leaving the rambling plot and characters section. To summarise: first book shortlisted for Andre Norton Award, was discussed by the New York Times in a discussion about fairies in books (along with several other books), author was interviewed, second book was mentioned briefly in a capsule review type. Also seems to have been moderately distributed and has a few amateur reviews. I think there is a case that collectively the three books merit treatment here but probably no further. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it was referenced in the Seattle Times it is real, Why should it be deleted? --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stand-up comedy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai stand-up comedy

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

I can find no evidence for its existence or its notability--and none is provided in the article, which merely lists a number of comedians and every now and then mentions "Shanghai." Part of its definition, apparently, is "The purpose of them is to make audience laugh." Not a notable topic, in short. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not effectively communicating whatever the author meant to communicate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ merge with Stand-up comedy - The article refers to "Shanghai Qingkou (海派清口) which shows 7,660,000 results in google. By searching possible English keywords, it shows another 91,800 results. See also media coverage from CNN[39] and San Francisco Chronicle[40]. However, I think the article needs a cleanup to make it match the quality of wikipedia. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Thoughts: Stand-up comedy has covered the various regional styles. The article on the Shanghai variation doesn't seem comprehensive to make it a single entry. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stand up comedy per Winstonlighter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pascal's Wager. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist's Wager

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of DreamGuy, who was unable to complete the nomination due to a Twinkle failure. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination was:

Article is a mess with no attempt at demonstrating notability of any sort. No reliable sources. Completely original research. Existence of article with no citations proving it's important is basically POV pushing by inclusion for no reason, and its inclusion further attracted a Criticism section with criticism by uncited people pushing their own view. There's no salvage for this without demonstration that this has any reason to be a separate article from Pascal's Wager. The problems identified during the first deletion discussion have not been addressed in the many years since, suggesting the Keep voters were doing so on POV grounds on not encyclopedic standards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge back into Pascal's Wager. There are various iterations of an "Atheist's Wager" in print, and this article alludes most strongly to ones by Michael Martin and Richard Dawkins, but without tying the ideas to the authors. All of these are direct responses or reactions to Pascal's Wager, and can be characterized as criticisms of the premises of Pascal's Wager. bd2412 T 14:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge based on existence of book reference. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book mentioning the subject is not enough to make it notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pascal's Wager, does not seem to be independently notable enough to warrant own article, but a redirect should suffice. Icalanise (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Pascal's Wager. That would put all the information in one place so readers don't have to skip between the two articles. Some of the detail could also be trimmed from this article but that is another issue.Wolfview (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. Merging a lot of unnotable information into Pascal's Wager is not good wikipractice. If however it is merged, only the single claim that is sourced should be merged, even though that source alone does not make the topic notable. N2e (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pascal's Wager. The article subject is clearly notable, considering the merge arguments and references here (in this AfD and in the article) and all the Keep arguments and references in the first AfD here, which was properly closed as Keep (included herein by reference). This AfD should not determine what content gets merged, as that is a normal editing process. In fact, this issue could have been handled with a merge nomination, rather than an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa-Marie Long (Presenter/Actress)

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

Recently Created page a couple of sources out here but not much Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although with some doubts. She is not notable as an actress, since in the only movie that she played in that is mentioned in the article she was a minor character, but she might be notable as a television personality. I think that she might meet the first part of WP:ENT, as having multiple significant roles in television shows (hosting events and shows on notable TV channels). --Slon02 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment ahhh... the futility of Find searches that do not create a suitable search parameter. With the less search-confusing and simpler "Lisa-Marie Long" we find she has a few sources... but independence and reliability is quite questionable with such "finds' as being a "poker presenter" interviewed in such as UK Poker News and then one has to ask oneself, is being a presenter/host for TV and online poker games notable in any way, when accompanied by minor roles in a very few films?[41] She does not seem to get any coverage outside the poker industry itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noni Ιoannidou

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

Some claims of notability but no substantial coverage in RS, fails WP:ENTERTAINER –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual appears to have been in many Greek language films and television. I would hope Wikipedians with access to Greek language databases might come forward with sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I have left a note at WT:WikiProject Greece. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that IMDb lists her as Nonni rather than Noni, but don't want to move the article during the AfD. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. After seeing the comment on the Greek project page, as per above comment, I am trying to provide here. The actress has substantial theatrical carrier. Her page in the Greek National Thatre database lists 8 National plays (mostly ancient Greek tragedies which in Greece is a sign of an actor beeing well established to be selected in those). That number of plays is much more than the occasional appearance in a government funded play of other Greek actors. One of the largest newspapers in Greece, Eleftherotypia once did a piece specifically on her: here] (translation: to English). I believe the last one counts as coverage per WP:GNG (1st bullet in that policy) by at least one WP:RS. My two cents on her name: it actually derives from Hermione, so I'd put my money on "Nonne" for an English transliteration since None with one "n" is pronounced "none" rather than Non-e. Thanks for caring enough to not hastily delete the page! :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !voters misinterpret WP:ENT. In order to be notable, he must be a major part of multiple notable shows. As for the "large fan base," Youtube is not a reliable source for measuring notability (see WP:BIG). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Canterbury

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

Subject is not notable per WP:ENT. Only role is in one Discovery Channel series. Viable biographical references are virtually nonexistent. Taroaldo (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary subject of a television series on a major US television network -Drdisque (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the notability criteria at WP:ENT states that an entertainer is notable if he or she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the notability criteria at WP:ENT states: "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." In addition to the Discovery Channel show, Dave Canterbury also has a significant presence and following on YouTube under the username, "wildernessoutfitters". At the time of this writing the YouTube account lists 1.75 million channel views, 5.45 million total upload views, and 23,868 subscribers. He is also known for his seminar classes on survival and bushcraft topics. - --ChooseChris (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no BLP notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaret Reddick

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

This article does serve the incredibly usefull purpose of telling us what Reddicks favourite song is but unfortunately does not show that he has any real notability outside of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the name of a member of a notable band is just redirected to the band's article. In some cases, though, enough coverage of the individual leads to a split to a separate article. (To take an extreme example, Kurt Cobain is not just a redirect to Nirvana (band).) Jaret Reddick's coverage is mostly connected to his band Bowling for Soup, but I'm actually finding some news articles that focus just on him, rather than mentioning him in passing in an article about Soup. "Jaret Reddick: Punk Soup for the Soul" (July 28, 2006) is an interview with him for Voice of America News. "Chirpy Texans plan to bowl over fans: Jackie Butler chats to Bowling for Soup vocalist Jaret Reddick ahead of the pop punk outfit's return to Exeter" (October 23, 2009), an interview in the Western Morning News really just focuses on Reddick; same goes for "Comedic punks who just don't want to grow up: Texan pop-punk band Bowling For Soup: Lead singer Jaret Reddick talks touring to the Echo's Hannah Hope" (October 23, 2009) in Express & Echo. "Grammy news, baby make for wild week" (Saldana, Hector; January 10, 2003; San Antonio Express-News, p. H15) focuses on Reddick and his family. Those are just a few examples. I'd lean towards keep rather than a redirect. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's certainly notable. If all it contains is information about his favorite music, it should be expanded, not deleted. The Rhymesmith (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage

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

Contested proposed deletion, apparently been deleted once before as well. Non notable business that provides design data management solutions to semiconductor companies for managing their IC design databases. Advertising and neutrality issues: they provide "solutions". (That non-neutral sales patter really grinds my gears, in case you hadn't noticed.) References don't really show historical or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. The outside references are to obscure trade publications with small audiences. They record the introduction of product lines [42][43] or would appear to be testimonials on rather informal and blog-like or newsletter sites [44][45]. Not sure these references get to technical significance either, and nothing I found on Google News Archive looks more promising either. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage - Remedies Made, plus Background on sources cited

Hi Ihcoyc,

Added 8-17-10: Correction: I thought the page was deleted before but it was actually just cut to a stub page. That's when I first got involved and modified the page.

Original: I have now changed the IC Manage Wikipedia page and done the research to address some of your comments.

There seem to be 2 main elements that you are asking me to address:

A. Remedy page to Wikipedia standards.

Below are the changes I made to the page today:

1) Replaced Solutions with software.

2) The electronic design automation industry term for this technology area is “Design Data Management”, so I kept that term. Have been debating whether adding a Wikipedia section on this would help with understanding – there are both commercial and open source solutions. Thoughts?

3) Deleted uncited Perforce reference. The last person that deleted the section suggested commentary on Perforce, but it was hard finding a third party reference.

4) In addition to existing articles focused on IC Manage, added citation to general article on global design management (ie not company-specific) that contained content on IC Manage technology. Added cited statement from Nvidia that they used IC Manage to help design over 100 production chipsI did not put this originally as I was concerned it sounded ‘promotional’ but added it now to help show you noteworthiness in the use of the technology. I would greatly appreciate you input as to if helps or hurts to have it there.

B. Noteability.

Per Wikipedia’s notability section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, which I have been using for my entries: 1) Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. 2) An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

If you will click on all the company products on these 2 revision control software pages below, I would argue that the IC Manage’s page adheres to Wikipedia standards more than any of them. I didn’t click on several, but not all companies there, but I believe IC Manage may be the only company where all the facts in the article had independent, 3rd party sources cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revision_control_software

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software

You also commented on the naturesources cited and the size of their audience, so I researched this area also. IC Manage is part of the Electronic Design Automation (EDA) is a ~$5 billion industry. Because EDA is business to business industry rather than a consumer one, Technology from even the largest public companies such as Synopsys and Cadence is covered by focused trade journals rather than the WSJ and NYT. (Similar most business-to-business IT technology). There are over 300 companies in the space, with virtually no advertising support and thus limited staff to cover content. Thus getting coverage in the Electronic trades journal is unusual – and noteworthy.

The 3 sources I used meet Wikipedia’s criteria for independence are all read worldwide. I found information on them and their circulation:

EETimes. 10 million page views per month . 536,000 print and digital edition subscribers

http://mediakit.eetimesgroup.com/media-products/ee-times/

EDN. Combined Total Reach: 244,843, Average Monthly Page Views: 503,171

http://www.edn.com/file/2449-2009_DN_Media_Kit_Final.pdf?force=true

Deepchip. Deepchip is part of the EETimes family of publications mentioned above. Deepchip focuses on contributed technology papers from semiconductor hardware (chip) designers, equivalent to a conference user tracks where designers submit articles/papers on different software tools for consideration for publication – every single accepted articles have been heavily vetted for data and content. Deepchip was under construction/remodel when you looked at it so I can understand the immediate first impression you were left with. (it is now mostly complete, if you want to visit the homepage. Since Deepchip started in the 90’s the site editor still chooses to keep a Craigslist style font.)

As with most publications these days, Deepchip has a combination of serious technical/factual articles and blogs/viewpoint. But the two type are clearly distinguished in the titles: ‘ESNUG Items’ are contributed technology articles, and ‘Wiretaps’ are viewpoint/blogs. But here are 2 examples of technical articles (written intentionally in first person, with supporting hard data, as required by the site editor. (unrelated to IC Manage, but just to help understand the website).

Microsoft: http://www.deepchip.com/items/0482-06.html

Qualcomm: http://www.deepchip.com/items/0485-07.html

I know Wikipedia doesn’t allow blogs as sources (as they should not), so I only source the technical articles from that site. Deepchip content has been cited by other electronic design publications, in public company quarterly conference calls, and even in at least 1 public company press release that I found. I can send you the content.

If I can answer any further questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My personal take on these business articles is that too much time is spent counting sources and readership, and not enough evaluating what they say. I would not have started any deletion process on this article if the text contained sourced statements that, in plain English, suggested that this business had created something that a student of the history of chip design two centuries out would want to know about.

All we learn from the history section of this article is that this business introduced the beta version of its commercial design data management software system, and that it announced its Global Design Platform (GDP) design data management system. Even if these were radical, innovative products of the kind to make their mark through the centuries, the vague and inappropriate tone of this publicist's language make them look like routine announcements of product lines. If you can't, within the scope of reasonable neutrality, show me how this business stands out from the crowd and has made history in its field, it probably isn't an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

I would like to add additional background info. This discussion is important as it impacts 100s of pages associated with Electronic Design Automation, plus dozens associated with revision control as shown above.

I cited the audience size of the referenced sources specifically to address -in a quantifiable manner- the posted concern that the sources did not have a large audience.

The electronics publications cited (EETimes and EDN) cover many areas of electronics - mil-aero, automotive, embedded internet, medical, audio; electronic design automation software is only one area of coverage. So this actually exceeds the minimum criteria as IC Manage is being covered by a publication that extends beyond it's immediate field. Only a small fraction (i.e. the most noteworthy) of EDA software technology products are covered. They simply do not have the staff to cover 'run of the mill'.

The page meets this fundamental 'noteability' criteria. :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

These electronics trade editors are specialists that to screen for noteworthy content in electronics, just as law reviews and medical journals screen for noteworthy content in their field to cover. None of the articles cited in the page are press release regurgitations. Two contain independent technology content independent of any announcement (to have NVidia to publically comment on a product is noteworthy in itself), and in the other two articles the editors thought the technology change was noteworthy enough to do a formal interview.

BTW, the term 'solutions' that I originally used which Steve said called attention to the piece is actually widely used in EDA to distinguish between point tool whose inputs/outputs are in industry standard formats, and products that have been integrated into the design flow via scripts and menu commands. I understand that from a Wikipedia perspective it sounded like 'marketing' so I deleted it. Beyond that my original page was factual.

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam piece. Brief discussions in a few trade publications doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. I get no sense of notability from the article, only that it wants me to buy its products. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More Remedies made to the page. I have done more research and modified the page further to add additional commentary on noteworthiness of the technology to the electronics industry in the history section, including a 3 page EETimes research article to demonstrate a broader context of notability that wasn't on the original page. (please see the new items for 2009 and 2010). Additionally, I have deleted the entire features section, and shortened other sections to avoid any appearance of 'trying to sell product', which is not the intention.

I had intentionally limited the articles I cited to keep the content limited. If there is a guideline in Wikipedia that states a certain number of articles is required to show noteworthiness, then I will add more articles. The $5 billion Electronic Design Automation (chip design software) industry is vital to entire electronics industry and the internet. Yet it inherently it is ONLY covered in electronics trade journals, and they meet the criteria for independent sources. As I stated above, the 2 main publications I used cover a broad range of electronics topics, not just EDA, and have 240K to 500K visitors - views/month - these are legitimate publications.

I am trying to meet Wikipedia's objective criteria. Are only Wikipedia admins allowed a voice here, or can I ask others that are familiar with the EDA industry to comment?

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article, even with the improvements, comes perilously close to advertising, I am of the opinion that enough has been done to demonstrate notability. Deb (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on meeting Wikipedia criteria for citations for Notability based on being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. FYI I didn't create the original IC Manage page, but modified it to include only factual content with cited independent resources. Equivalent page is IBM ClearCase. Both tools are commonly used in Electronic Design Automation for design data management. The only references cited are with regard to Rational being acquired by IBM. The rest is either uncited, or reference's IBM's own information page, whereas IC Manage's page is limited to content from independent sources- additional technical content derived from IC Manage's site can be added if requested. Mukis (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clubroot (musician)

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

Non-notable DJ. Ridernyc (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the coverage received he is sufficiently notable: Allmusic bio, Scaruffi, Pitchfork Media, PopMatters, FACT.--Michig (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:MUSICBIO #1: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." For works, see Michig's links above. Visor (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. About to embark on a tour, accompanied by a showcase at Decibel Festival, Seattle: [46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthemrecords (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doorly

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

Non-notable dubstep artist. Ridernyc (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He's produced remixes for a good range of notable musicians, and is rather well-known for a dubstep artist. The article needs vast improvement, but I don't think that's a reason for deletion. Esteffect (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. Some sources do say that he produced for these artists, but they say no more about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transpacific

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

Contested PROD. Dictionary definition followed by a description of things that may include the word "Transpacific". An adjective is not usually the basis for an encyclopedia article, which nearly always describes a noun. Aside from use of the same adjective, there seems little common purpose in the rest of the items listed under this title. This title was around for years with some truly bad prose in the lead section; cleaning it up showed how hollow the item really was. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Transpacific travel or something similar to satisfy WP:ADJECTIVE's requirement that article names be in noun form, and then edit the article accordingly. Transpacific travel seems like a viable subject for an encyclopedia article; far from a simple dicdef, it can cover the history of transpacific travel, modes of travel, travel statistics, etc. Note there is also a similar article named Transatlantic Crossing which until recently was titled Transatlantic; given the similarity, the fate of these articles could reasonably be tied together. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth merging here. The article seems to exist, not to talk about Transpacific travel in history, or nowadays by air or sea, or about the Transpacific Yacht Race which it doesn't even mention; its main focus seems to be the totally WP:CRYSTAL BALL dream of a Trans-Global Highway. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL BALL Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also there appear to be alot of pages on this. I dont know how but they shouold really all be added toi this nomination Trans Global Highway Cosmopolitan Railway Bering Strait crossing.Slatersteven (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are related to transpacific aviation should be moved somewhere else (maybe transpacific travel), as long as we add more details, but other than that, delete per Slatersteven. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Model United Nations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Model United Nations

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

Model united nations student organization no indication of notability comapred to any other Chapter of a Model UN fails WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a chapter, but a contest, and one of the oldest and biggest of its kind. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual examples of Model United Nations are generally not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one seems to be notable on its own. Model United Nations does describe it as the first high school model un, but didnt link to this article, which it does now. 4.8 k hits on google, not many on scholar/books. not bad. i wonder if the other notable examples at the main article should have their own articles as well, eventually?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Model United Nations, which already has information about this event so no merge is needed. This may be the oldest or original MUN conference, but that doesn't make it individually notable without significant coverage - which this does not have. A clear case for WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Model United Nations at this time (maybe more sources will be fouthcomming) not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- there is insufficient notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source for a separate article. N2e (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeForU FIRST LIVE at ZeppTokyo 2006

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

No references and written like an advertisement Aaddaamm94 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to BeForU, as the group might be determined to have a notability, but I am unable to determine any for this DVD of their 2006 concert at the Zepp in Tokyo. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Music DVD that doesn't seem to be notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows NT 7.0

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

Pure speculation; nothing has been announced on the NT version numbering for Windows 8. It could very well be NT 6.2 rather than NT 7.0. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows 7 as an {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R with possibilities}} 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MithrandirAgain (talk • contribs) 2010-08-08 05:59:44
Note See the previous deletion discussion about this page, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_16 . 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources to confirm this version numbering, either. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I do not understand much of the debate between Colonel Warden and Duggy 1138, particularly Duggy's statement "The 'secondary sources' are all primary sources for the assumed sources for the characters used." If he clarifies what he means by this statement, I may reconsider this close. The rest of the AfD is a disagreement over whether this counts as original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly based on primary sources within primary sources (especially a fake comic within The Black Dosier) or the original sources for the characters (even though the comic makes clear that these are flawed in a number of cases) removing of these will leave mostly just a rehashing of the main comics; also full of speculation; plus comic book timelines aren't really encyclopedic Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article lists multiple secondary sources. The rest just seems to be a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. At worst, we'd just merge into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and so deletion does not seem sensible or productive. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "secondary sources" are all primary sources for the assumed sources for the characters used.
- It was claimed that fixing this page was just a matter of editing 3 1/2 years ago. Didn't happen. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of your first sentence eludes me. Your second point is irrelevant as AFD is not a mechanism to goad editors into action. We are a volunteer project and have no deadline. Jesse Nevin's companion volumes seem to be good sources for this stuff and are secondary. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not trying to goad anyone into action. I'm saying that it goes beyond editing. If it was just an editing issue then someone would have solved it in the last 3 1/2 years. It's not, it's deeper than that. The entire idea is unencyclopedic. No amount of editing will fix that. Jess Nevin's books are great, I contributed to them, so I know. But I'm not sure they can solve the problems with this page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources are only used (as far as I can determine) for the purposes of original research - just because something happened *that* way or at *that* time in the original works doesn't mean it does in the Moore work. It's simply primary sources and Original research. Shame really as it's a very good article otherwise (is there no Wiki it could be sent off to?). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the article then be edited to remove the WP:OR you mention? And if so, would you? : ) - jc37 03:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially tried that. Eventually, I realised that if you remove all of the OR, you end up with a simple retelling of the "main story" in the comics. All of the background material isn't usable. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Warden. Deletion isn't called for in this instance.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confer 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a request, not a requirement. The answer, of course, is per its rules and guidelines, which it sets forth.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic, non-notable, in-universe fancruft. Transwiki might be possible to somewhere like here. SnottyWong ^confer 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable book series and franchise that has a recent film based off of it. Useful information for those researching the collection for cultural studies purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codehydro (talk •contribs) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As to the grounds on which I stake this position, I would ask that you please refer to my comprehensive evaluation of the article's sources and their inherent incompatibility with WP policies (WP:NOR and WP:VER) and style guidelines. That aside, for everyone's sake, let's not speak of the film adaptation. Ever. - Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article of this type will inevitably have a heavy reliance on primary sources as these are by far the most accurate. This is exactly the kind of pop culture article that Wikipedia does so well and to delete it would ultimately be to the detriment of this project. DLAwaster (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the kind of articles that wikis do well. In fact, online participation is how Jess's books started. However, wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an pop culture wiki. Doing something well that it shouldn't be doing isn't what wikipedia is about. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are fine for a fictional subject. There is no reason to doubt it, since all facts about it come from that original source. And its a notable enough series to have a timeline article dedicated to it. Dream Focus 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources". A timeline like this is a synthesis of the material, most of the entries are interpretive or explanatory, and the entire article is based on primary sources. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A timeline isn't necessarily interpretative. If the information is available, and this is just a collation of information. For example, if the work in question states that (hypothetically) event a happened on 19 August 2010, and also states that event b happened 3 days prior, it's not interpretive to state that event b happened on 16 August 2010. - jc37 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is interpretative, but pretty soft and you could get away with it... however "TNTA:3 p. 1. Apocrypha: Almanac Editors: This page contains what may be an error or obfuscation by Squiffy, or one of the other Editors of the Almanac, as it states that Nemo dies in May 1909, when the events of "Century: 1910" show he probably dies in April 1910." & "Halley's Comet would have been visible at night at about April 20 in 1910. All other dates of events taking place in London are judged by their connection to this approximate date" are OR. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't have chronologies of fictional events and alternate histories simply because they are verifiable. In the end, this is pure and simple fancruft, of no encyclopaedic value, and of no real world importance. Claritas § 22:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, fictional information is of real world value. And this isn't "indiscriminate", at all. - jc37 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fictional information can be of real world value. Doesn't mean this is. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia should not be used as platform for primary (original) research. If this timeline has not been published by a reliable, third party source, then making one up in Wikipedia as a proxy or a substitute is not the way to do. There are lots of other venues for such speculation such as Wikia, but the scope and content of this list falls outside the remit of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Italic text

[1] ttp://www.desertexposure.com/200805/200805_scat.php

[2] "Felow, National Academy of Sciences, India, Allahabad". P C Pandey is Fellow in official web page of Academy, Allahabad

[3] "Fellow, India Academi of Science, Bangalore". P C Pandey is fellow in official web page of the Academy, Bnagalore

[4] "Fellow, Indian meteorological Society". P C pandey is fellow in official web page of IMS, New Delhi-110003

[5] “1989: Prem Chand Pandey is SSB Prize winner.". Dr. Pandey is Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award winner in India. This document is unsourced. Xxanthippe

[6] “1989: Prem Chand Pandey is SSB Prize winner”. Dr. Pandey is Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award winner in India. This document is blank in my browser (Firefox). Xxanthippe

[7] “list of IES Fellows The Society of Earth Scientists”. Prem Chand Pandey is Fellow of Society of Earth Science India

[8] [1]

[9] [2]

[10] [3]

[11] [4]

[12] [5]

[13] [6]

[14] [7]

[15] [8]

[16] [9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]