Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 1

< 28 February	2 March >

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeee Eee Eeee

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

i don't believe that notability has been firmly established, and i am suspicious of self promotion and feigned notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Notability_(books) criteria, I don't see how his books are notable enough in themselves to deserve individual articles; delete/merge all Tao Lin books into author's article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete external links and references are mostly dead ends or links to blogs, author sites, etc. small press author with no significant mainstream or reliable alternative coverage. we should play ths straight by the book and delete any and all content related to this author that is not properly sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I must admit to being mildly intrigued at the thought of a book titled after dolphin noises that alludes to Schopenhauer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment, as the nominator, i am obviously voting delete. however, i also agree with jamie that we should "delete/merge all Tao Lin books into author's article".

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nom withdrew (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nation of Islam

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

~~Non notable advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I count three RS references among the plethora of SPS, and the Christian Science Monitor appears non-trivial, thus Notability appears to be met. While the article can certainly stand to be cleaned up and rewritten in a more encyclopedic voice, I see nothing that's un-fixable advertisement. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An advertisement? Ads don't usually include entire sections criticizing the subject. Not sure what the problem is, since this one seems to be pretty well balanced and sourced. The group itself seems notable enough as a breakaway from the Nation of Islam. [1] No reason to delete. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of significant coverage in reliable news sources so meets notability guidelines.--Beloved Freak 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:54, 3 March 2010(UTC)
Keep - appears to be notable and covered by RS. What's the problem again? Maybe Ism can clarify the reasons of putting it up. Wikid ^as© 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikidas, I can't. I withdrawl this nomination - I was wrong - and agree with Keep. Ism schism (talk) 06:52, 5 March 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 Consensus was this is not synthesis or OR and is a proper list per WP:List Mike Cline (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of international adoption scandals

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

Nominating on behalf of Dragonflysixtyseven, who says he has lost the habit of starting AFDs. Seems to be an examplefarm, laden with OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything seems to be referenced, and I'm not seeing any OR. An important aspect of adoption that should be covered here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like so much...synthesis, is the thing. It bothers me. DS (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing synthesis. There are international adoption scandals. This is a list of some of them. They all seem to be referenced. Just like lots of similar lists on WP, such as List of events named massacres, List of murderers by number of victims, etc. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, of course. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a notable subject that an encyclopedia user would refer to, and well sourced, with context. To the extent that it seems like synthesis, those objections can be fixed. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good list to me. Well referenced and informative.Tobit2 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galway to Graceland

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

Never-released album by marginal performer; prod removed on theory that every album by a "notable" musician is inherently notable, an obvious WP:NOTINHERITED fallacy. Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious fallacy or not re: "notable", the album was in fact released, just in limited numbers (which i could argue makes it notable as it's something of a collectors item). It's listed on allmusic.com, and i put in a link to a review. I recently bought a copy. I feel we should KEEP this entry, 'cause it's hard to find any info on this album anywhere else, and it's a legitimate part of Kavana's discography. Notneils (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album, unreleased albums are almost never worthy of a page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - as noted above, it was released.Notneils (talk) 02:53, 6 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Livingood

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

Procedural nomination. Article was deleted via prod on 22 December 2009 and recreated on 8 February 2010. Pohick2 (talk · contribs), who recreated the article, left a note on the talk page objecting to the original deletion by prod. Article was prodded again on 22 February but the talk page note indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale this time around was "Minor academic, fails notability criteria for academics."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article author) Prod'ed as non-notable academic. i'm saying notable per managing editor of Best New Poets series, which has multiple reviews. WP:AUTHOR 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pohick2 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little impact appears. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Since the Best New Poets series has about 150 holding libraries, it might be notable enough, given the reviews in Google Scholar [2] DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 2 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMTrack

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by single-purpose user who is a manager at the company. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources and I cannot see any indication that this article passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything that is promotion - I just see factual software information similar to the wikis of the other 45 issue tracking products in Comparison of issue tracking systems as such I recommend keep User:Nahouw —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC). — Nahouw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being "factual" is not a keep reason in itself. What we're discussing is whether or not the subject of the article is notable in the encyclopedic sense. Also note that other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one reference to RMTrack at StackOverflow.com which is a community of software engineers and programmers. If they don't talk about it, chances are no one else does either. Google books and scholar searches don't have any mention of this software either. Michigangold (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Pcap ping 20:37, 2 March 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) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary (band)

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

Sources are myspace and forums. No notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Bands only record is self released. Article creator seems to be intent on creating articles about many self released Israeli records and the bands that recorded them. noq (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:37, 6 March 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) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brantly

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

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after bringing the chains in for a measurement. The minute he kicks a ball in the NFL, CFL, or even UFL, he meets point 1 of WP:ATH—and then notability is clear-cut. Even now, it's arguable that he meets point 2: what higher level of amateur football is there than the Football Bowl Subdivision? The stronger case for keeping the article, though, is that the references section shows that he meets WP:GNG. Even though a lot of the links are to aggiesports.com, there is at least one full-fledged story about him from the Houston Chronicle. Accordingly, I'm willing to say he's "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would agree that playing pro (barely) makes one notable per WP:ATHLETE. According to the article, though, he has not ever kicked a ball in the the NFL, CFL, or even UFL. He might be notable someday, but he might not; he is not now. And as for WP:GNG, if somebody only possibly notable because they are an athlete can get in with local news coverage of their athletic pursuits, then many, many high school atheletes and almost every college athelete would get in Wikipedia, rendering WP:ATHLETE meaningless. You cannot compare Div I college football to the Olympics, can you? Do you really think that any college player in an FBS program is automatically notable? I think you are confusing WP:V with WP:N. PackerMania (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "after bringing the chains in for a measurement" is meant to say that, while my opinion is stronger than a "weak keep," it was only after a lot of consideration. WP:ATHLETE is a specific-case notability measure; arguably, it's secondary to WP:GNG, which is a subsection of WP:Notability. Had the Chronicle story not been there, I would not have felt as strongly about keeping the article. Even though Houston is only about 100 miles from College Station, it's a major newspaper in a major metropolitan area. I agree that not every FBS player is notable; however, not every FBS player gets as many column-inches about him as Brantly did. Accordingly, it comes down to evaluating this specific case against the notability guidelines and deciding whether the article fulfills them. I agree that this case is borderline—I've admitted that I wrestled with the decision a while. I don't fault you for nominating it for deletion, but I don't agree with the deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make fair points, but I still think logic dictates that the article should be deleted. I have trouble accepting that a local news story about an in-state, undrafted free agent (from a nearby town who played for a nearby college) trying out for the local NFL team should be enough to indicate notability (remember, notability is permanent). I wonder how many players have been drafted late and cut/waived at a later point in the pre-season than this guy, but would fail your analysis because they never got a solo article written up in the pre-season press. Had he been picked-up by Green Bay, the article never would have been written; had he gone to Wisconsin or been from Madison, the article never would have been written, either. If he were really so notable, he would have at least played a down. I wonder what other editors' takes will be. . . PackerMania (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the major college awards he won make him notable. You're theory that they are not notable if they never played professionally does not work. are you saying Jason White is not notable then, because he has never played a game of professional football. Or how about Graham Harrell. I think the either a.) is an avid deletionist or b.) does not have a grasp on notability requirements for athletes. If they fail WP: athlete, WP: GNG still apply. RF23 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My theory is not that one MUST play in the pros to be notable. But as a guideline, WP:ATHLETE makes sense. I could envision a pop warner player who get non-trivial news coverage for some unique characteristic meeting WP:GNG and certainly a significant college record holder, even if he doesn't ever play pro. I could even justify all FIRST team consensus All-Americans meeting WP:GNG for pretty much that reason alone. But not run-of-the-mill, or even really good, college players. As for your analogies, they are straw men. Having started in the BCS Championship game and being a consensus All-American in my mnd qualify as close enough to critria 2 of WP:Athlete. Are you really comparing Justin Brantly to Jason White? And Graham Harrell played in the pros (though in Canada, which still meets the first requirement of WP:Athlete. The both pass the general WP:GNG for the same reasons. They are both night and day from Justin Brantly. PackerMania (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted in prior college football discussions, the sole purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to establish an automatic inclusionary rule for players who have reached the highest level of a sport. Brantly's status as a consensus All-Big 12 award winner and a second-team All-American go a long way to showing notability. More importantly, college football players qualify under the general notability standard if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. A search of the Newsbank database shows that Brantly has been the subject of such media coverage focused on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage). Examples include: (1) Brantly feeling right at home Ex-A&M punter impressing Texans during workouts, Houston Chronicle, June 5, 2009, (2) Small-town guy making big-time kicks A&M's Brantly fourth nationally in yards per punt, Houston Chronicle, November 26, 2008, (3) Brantly following closely in what Lechler accomplished, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 27, 2008, (4) Aggies punter aims to follow in steps of early mentor, San Antonio Express, October 7, 2008, (5) A&M punter enjoys Lechler comparisons, San Antonio Express, November 24, 2005, (6) Brantly Named To Ray Guy Award Watch List, KBTX, Sep 17, 2008, (7) Brantly Earns All-American Honors, KBTX, Dec 10, 2008 Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Graham Harrel has never played a down in the CFL yet. Brantley is a 3 time ray guy nominee, which to me seems he's notable under WP:GNG. If a guy is a three time Heisman candidate, he definately would be notable. The Ray Guy award is the Heisman for punters. The fact that he went undrafted really shouldn't factor in for kicker and punter articles, since even some HOF kickers went undrafted.RF23 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these are some serious awards and coverage, albiet a lot is "second team" or "honorable mention" -- but still, that is some widespread coverage of independent sources. It would be enough if he played tiddlywinks, so why not football?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:12, 6 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britton Colquitt

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

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR Close and relist later on- if needed Has a chance to become the Broncos starting punter next season (one of three punters on the roster) Wait until it pans out to see if it happens. Just because he hasn't had a chance to play in the NFL doesn't make him not notable. I'd say getting signed to the practice squad of an NFL team ensues notability.. it would be different if it was a guy who was cut in June after going undrafted. RF23 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this player has notability now, it will never be appropriate to delete for lack of notability. Notability is not temporary nor, it would follow, is notability contingent on a future event. Where is it WP policy or guideline to create and keep an article before a subject is notable? You have to be kidding that you think every undrafted player signed to a practice squad is notable for that reason alone. If you really believe that is consensus, you should try to change WP:ATHLETE. The article should be deleted now and recreated if and when the player becomes notable. You could always userfy the page to your userspace and when he walks on the field the first time, move it on over to the regular space. PackerMania (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give him the boot for failing WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he makes the Broncos. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a two-time All-SEC punter from a long-time punting family, I'd keep him as long as he's a member of the Broncos to see if he makes it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, since he comes from a long-time punting family... Seriously, though, I take it you would then vote to delete if he is cut. But that gets it backwards. Wikipedia articles are not to cover potentially notable people. An article should only cover an actually notable person. There is a great chance that he will make it, but it is not almost certain. Take a look at WP:FUTURE. Is there a countervailing "Let's see if they make it" guideline that I am not aware of? PackerMania (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I get all that. I just wouldn't waste the time deleting it and re-creating it when it could just sit there untouched.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in numerous prior college football discussions, the sole purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to establish an automatic inclusionary rule for players who have reached the highest level of a sport. Colquitt's status as a two-time All-SEC award winner goes along way to showing notability. More importantly, college football players qualify under the general notability standard if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. A search of the Newsbank database shows that Colquitt has been the subject of extensive media coverage focused on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage). Examples include: (1) Broncos add Britton Colquitt with 2010 as opportunity, Knoxville News Sentinel, December 31, 2009, (2) Colquitt rivalry set in motion, Knoxville News Sentinel, April 29, 2009, (3) Colquitt to handle long-distance field goals, The Daily Times (Maryville, TN), October 30, 2008, (4) Colquitt is back with Vols after suspension, The Augusta Chronicle, October 9, 2008, (5) Wiedmer: Colquitt getting his final chance, Chattanooga Times-Free Press, October 9, 2008, (6) Colquitt returns to punt for Tennessee, Associated Press Archive, October 8, 2008, (7) Colquitt out of Vols' doghouse, lessons learned -- Punter back after 5-game suspension, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), October 8, 2008 , (8) 'Light as a feather' Colquitt glad to be back punting after 5-game suspension, Knoxville News Sentinel, October 7, 2008, (9) Vol punter reflects on errors -- Colquitt says DUI taught him lesson, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), July 9, 2008, (10) Colquitt pleads guilty to DUI, Athens Banner-Herald (GA), July 8, 2008, (11) Colquitt taught a 'big lesson', Knoxville News Sentinel, July 8, 2008 , (12) Tennessee P Colquitt pleads guilty to DUI, Associated Press Archive, July 7, 2008, (13) Tenn's Colquitt suspended, loses scholarship after DUI arrest, Associated Press Archive, February 19, 2008, (14) New formation, Colquitt aid kick coverage, Knoxville News Sentinel, October 7, 2007, (15) Fulmer: Gaines probably out against Florida, Colquitt may play, Associated Press Archive, September 10, 2007, (16) Colquitt’s role remains uncertain for the season opener, Knoxville News Sentinel, August 27, 2007, (17) Britton Colquitt + kicker - All-SEC punter now a kicker, too, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), August 26, 2007, (18) Kicking leg gets attention of Vols -- Colquitt interrupted by pulled muscle, The Commercial Appeal, August 21, 2007, (19) Colquitt will rest his leg, Knoxville News Sentinel, August 21, 2007, (20) Colquitt is go-to guy when Vols have to kick, Knoxville News Sentinel, August 15, 2007, (21) Punter follows family tree Britton Colquitt is the fourth member of his family to punt for Tennessee, York Daily Record (PA), December 28, 2006, (22) WHEN LESS IS MORE Light work for Colquitt is good news for Vols, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, October 27, 2006, (23) Colquitt upholds family name, The Daily Herald (Columbia, TN), September 26, 2006, (24) Colquitt’s rain makers mired Herd, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, September 26, 2006, (25) Colquitt becomes Vol weapon, The Daily Times, September 24, 2006, (26) Punting a family tradition at Tennessee Colquitt joins father, brother and cousin as Volunteer punters, Charleston Gazette (WV), September 23, 2006, (27) Fulmer's tough words work on Colquitt, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 9, 2006, (28) Fulmer kicking around missing Colquitt, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 5, 2006, (29) Best Be Forgotten, Confident Colquitt poised to rebound, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, September 26, 2005, (30) Colquitt hopes to put his best foot forward, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, September 17, 2005. Cbl62 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove this source from your list? Tenn s Colquitt suspended, loses scholarship after DUI arrest, Charleston Gazette (WV), February 19, 2008. I added reference to this event in the article. I'm not missing something, am I? PackerMania (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it because it's a duplicate of #13. Did not want to include the same article twice. Cbl62 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Cb162, according to your reasoning, would being a first team all-conference for a major conference be considered notable?RF23 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I'm not aware of a guideline stating such a principle, but receipt of a first-team All-SEC or All-Big 10 honor should go a long way in showing notability. Personally, I would favor a guideline that recognizes such players as notable. However, in crafting such a guideline, you'd have to determine which conferences are "major" and which all-conference selectors should count. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting since I'm not big into sports, but just a quote from WP:BIO: "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria (such as WP:ATHLETE)] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" so it's not the "automatic inclusionary rule" you've been claiming it is, just another likely rule to use. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I understand your comment, but based on American football deletion discussions over the past couple years, playing one game in the NFL or MLB has been treated per WP:ATHLETE as an automatic basis for inclusion. Sure, there might be cases where some would contend that a player participated in only a single professional contest should be rejected. But the point I was making is that, whether its automatic or not, WP:ATHLETE is an inclusionary guideline rather than an exclusionary guideline. Yet, some people misunderstand it and suggest that an athlete who has never played professionally is not notable. To the contrary, it has been widely recognized in prior discussions that a college football player who never plays professional football still qualifies if he meets the general notability standards by virtue of having received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. In this case, my quick research (summarized above) came up with more than 30 articles which are focused specifically on Colquitt, i.e., coverage of him rather than passing references to him in coverage of game results. There are closer cases where I have voted to delete, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Babb, but in my view, Colquitt is pretty clearly on the keep end of the spectrum. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That is a great point. And regarding RF23's question re: all-conference, why isn't the college football parallel to WP:ATHLETE #2 a college player being consensus All-American (or even just first team in one listing)? If WP:ATHLETE is the consensus position for athletes (realizing it is only a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and still subject to general notability), it would seem to require more than all-conference honors to be notable on the basis of athletics performance alone. Because news coverage of athletics is disproportionate to their reletive importance in the world, mere news coverage is going to be less accurate at determining notablity than more objective standards (like All-American, or playing in a pro game) and like I thought WP:ATHLETE was intended to do. The fluff pieces Cbl62 has cited here and at, for example, WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Brantly far from establishing some sort of objective, permanent notability, in my mind supports the case that WP:Athlete (and parallels that can be drawn for sports like football) should be the norm with exceptions made only in exceptional cases. If WP:ATHLETE will never carry the day (other than if Cbl62 wants to use it to automatically include somebody), we should get rid of it in favor of something editors agree on (two google news hits from the Sheboygan Times maybe). PackerMania (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per CB - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly rewrite later 1. He hasn't competed as a professional, and 2. Relatives of famous people are not notable just because they are related. Of course, I don't think that there will be much controversy over this if he becomes a successful punter. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see meeting general notability guideline and coverage for his college athletic production. Plus, no way this is a "vanity article" or it would not use one of its sources as being kicked off the team for boozing it up. Certainly meets NPV, and I'm okay with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:15, 6 March 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.

Chioke Dmachi

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was Speedy delete and salted by Peter Symonds. Note that this had been speedied several times in addition to three AFD; band's album articles were deleted per A9. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis (band)

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

Non-notable band, per WP:BAND. Self-released recordings and no significant independent coverage. I42 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hadn't noticed it has been through AfD twice before (both closed "delete"). Nominating for speedy deletion. I42 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 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 Consensus is that it Meets minimum notability requirements but article does need sourcing Mike Cline (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fodge

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

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:ATHLETE. He didn't even train with Dallas, let alone play. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to weak per the award. I will monitor and see if there's other consensus before further alteration. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Brantly. If we can find a way in, I'll take it. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Ray Guy award goes to the best punter in the entire nation. Winning this award makes him notable. What does the nominator have against punters? RF23 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've got nothing against punters, they are just first on the list. The Ray Guy Award goes to the best college punter. If the person never makes it in the pros, they are not notable per WP:ATHLETE. Once this guy even take one snap in the pros, he will eternally have my vote to keep an article. Until then, unless he does something notable not related to his football playing, he is not notable. and as Dennis the Tiger noted, this guy has not even yet trained with an NFL team. Why does RF23 have a sweet spot for undrafted free agents who have never played? PackerMania (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Ray Guy Award is one of the major awards in college football. Even if he never plays in the NFL, he is notable for his accomplishments as a college football player. A search of the NewsBank database reveals numerous articles focusing on Fodge. These include: (1) "Player to watch, Oklahoma State's Matt Fodge," USA Today, November 28, 2008, (2) "Fodge gets kick from notoriety," Augusta Chronicle, January 23, 2009, (3) "OSU's Fodge will play in East-West Shrine game," McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, January 16, 2009, (4) "Hang time helps Fodge earn honor," Augusta Chronicle, December 12, 2008, (5) "Oklahoma State's Matt Fodge captures big honor," McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, December 12, 2008 (6) "If OSU's punter Matt Fodge doesn't play, it's a good thing," McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 12, 2008, (7) "Fodge continues to be one of nation's top punters," Stillwater News Press, September 26, 2008, (8) "Fodge waits for moment: The OSU punter has only punted eight times so far," McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 25, 2008, (9) "Fodge waits for moment," Tulsa World, September 25, 2008, (10) "Welcome to my world: Punter Matt Fodge," The Oklahoman, August 3, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Winning the award does make it a very close call; being called the best at any position by selectors of a notable award is a big deal (even if not viewed as best by the All-America voters). It still doesn't strike me as as big of a deal as making the pros when athletic performance is the only factor (if he also won other non-athletic/non-athletic-related awards that might not individually make him notable, I would certainly agree they should all be coinsidered together as notable). Anyway, half of the articles you cite are forward looking ("Player to watch" & "Fodge waits for moment"). There is a difference between real news stories and preview articles or columns. Why the rush? If he makes a team it is a no brainer. Every year he fails to, the case would seem weaker still. Why not userfy until he does? PackerMania (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether he ever plays in the NFL. College football players who have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage qualify under general notability standards even if they never play in a single NFL game. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brought this up in another AFD, but no response yet. According to PackerMania, you are only notable if you play in the pros. According to this theory, Jason White (American football) or Graham Harrell or Ernie Davis would be not notable. None of them have ever played a game of NFL action. Yet they all played collegiatly (very well i might add) and make it in based on awards they won which make them meed WP:GNG. RF23 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC) EDIT: See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Brantly[reply]

Keep. I believe prior consensus has found that a high profile college athlete meets WP:ATHLETE, and winning the top award for your position in college football I believe makes you high profile. This article needs references, but speaking from a pure notability perspective, I say keep.—NMajdan•talk 14:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per major college football award. matt91486 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ray Guy award is a significant award and results in widespread recognition. Article needs editing and sourcing, tho...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middenmeer Aerodrome

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. This would be better suited to Middenmeer, which is already very limited and devotes a good deal of its time talking about the airfield. avs5221 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the airfield has an ICAO identifier. Recognition by an international organisation is an indication of notability. It's not a private farm strip but a publicly available airfield. A little of the history of the airfield can be found on the nl.Wiki article on Middenmeer, which states that it was a Royal Netherlands Air Force base in the Second World War. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Dutch, so I'm relying on a translation, but the NL page has 2 sentences on the airfield. This would seem to refute keeping the article, no? avs5221 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Language sources for WWII use.

Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. However, I still don't think they lend any notability to the airstrip. The first article seems to downplay the airfield's role (yes, it was used by the Dutch during WWII, but does that meet WP:GNG?) and the second article mentions the field once in passing. Maybe this could be merged into Military history of the Netherlands during World War II or Middenmeer, but I really have a hard time seeing why this deserves its own page. I don't doubt the airfield played a role in WWII, but it wasn't a major role necessitating a separate article. avs5221 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one, every other Dutch airport has an article (see List_of_airports_in_the_Netherlands). Middenmeer is without a doubt small, but how big does an airport have to be for it to be notable? It doesn't actually have an ICAO identifier, though you do see EHMM used on occasion. I'm not sure why this is, possibly this identifier has been requested but not yet granted (like EHOW is due to be assigned to Oostwold_Airport). Also, purely by chance - I'm a subscriber to an aviation magazine and this month it features a four page article on an aircraft (a Gyrocopter actually) being tested from this airport, so in aviation circles at least it doesn't seem to be that obscure. The airport is home to five different flying schools as well, has a fairly large amount of hangar space and there's 25 aircraft resident at the airport. And as said (though the article doesn't mention, but I'll add it), in WWII the area was used as a military airfield as well, giving it some historic notability.BabyNuke (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is complete enough to add value to Wikipedia as a whole. That the Middenmeer page would be bleak without its references to the a/d says more about that page than about this one. And indeed, if any aerodrome is worth a separate page then they all are. I regret however that NOT all Dutch aerodromes have their page as yet, one I am missing is the Axel gliderfield. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because Axel is a glider field. The only glider field that has an article is Terlet Airfield, and that's because the airfield is also used by fixed with aircraft (for tugging) and has an ICAO indicator. Furthermore, it has its own entry in the Dutch AIS.BabyNuke (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an explanation, ok, thanks. For myself I keep believing that an encyplopedia should be _complete_ , so that if it is once decided to mention any single aerodrome then the goal should be to mention them all. I am actually considering even creating a category "former aerodromes" for my Belgian home country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan olieslagers (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, one way of seeing if an article is going to be able to stand alone is to start by writing in in your sandbox. If it looks like it might make a decent article there then it will probably be OK. If you're struggling to get more than a stub then it's probably best restricted to an entry in a list. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 4 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margarona

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

A disputed PROD. No reliable sources indicating that this has any usage beyond a single restaurant, let alone in a widespread area; strong overtones of advertising for branded products; an unsubstantiated neologism. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a reference in a novel and at least a few other places that serve them. Not traditional sources, but they seem reliable enough for a drink. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. Read this: "It has been suggested that the mini beer was chosen to create the Margarona over of a full size beer since its compact dimensions would not affect the stability of the cocktail." If somebody can confirm the novel as a source and completely copyedit the article, it might become a weak keep, otherwise not. PanchoS (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That picture is hilarious, but no, the article reeks of promotional tone, and it's just another made up cocktail. Shadowjams (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No indication that this drink has gone mainstream. Most Google hits are for a Hotel Margarona, not for this drink. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The author and only editor of the article, one User:Kcklco, appears to be a single-purpose account. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 7 March 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 lounge music. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Age Bachelor Pad

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

Not a genre a neologism made up by one person. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources given as external links actually indicate it is a neologism and not a genre. Most of the bands listed more immediately fit into obvious genres.--SabreBD (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can not find significant, independent non-trivial coverage of the musical style by others than the gentleman who coined the term, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into lounge music. I could easily find significant, independent, nontrivial coverage of the musical style, however the amount of text does not yet justify a separate article. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the sources disagree whether this is a sub-genre of lounge music (this seems to be the majority opinion) or a neologism for this style. gidonb (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to lounge music; this is just a latter-day synonym that popped up in connection with Combustible Edison and the late '90s lounge fad. — Gwalla | Talk 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lounge music, since that is what it is. Chubbles (talk) 20:57, 3 March 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 (article creator recommended deletion) Enigma^msg 16:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lelo Sejean

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

No evidence of notability provided. Claims of playing in the lowest level of Argentinian football is only on the borderline of satisfying WP:ATHLETE, but still need a WP:RS to back them up. Playing or "would have played" for a national Under 19 team is not enough. Has previously been deleted at AFD and CSD:A7. Could be considered a CSD:G4, as I don't think there is much new here, but I can't be sure. The-Pope (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has played international football at U-19 level!! This article is no worse than these articles:

Howard Fondyke (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Robert Stambolziev (indicates evidence that he played youth football)
Peter Cvetanovski (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Robert Gaspar (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Kamal Ibrahim (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Eli Babalj (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Mustafa Amini (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Miloš Lujić (has not played in a pro league but played at international level)
Ahmad El Khodor (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Ali Yaacoub (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Robert Palikuća (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)
Ranisav Jovanović (there is evidence that he exists but no evidence he has played in a pro league)

Many articles of footballers in Wikipedia do not have any evidence, see for yourself, as for those who HAVE played International football there is no evidence of that either, including their appearances, you are just going to have to take my word for it otherwise i do not know what to tell you, If you honestly are so passionate about your claim, you really should go through every single Football Article and approve or disapprove of its notablity!!!!!!!!

Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 1 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dude. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i read that, and this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 1 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless reliable sources are found that he has played in a professional league or significant coverage in reliable sources is found (I have made a good faith attempt but found nothing). None of the references in the article mention this person as far as I can see. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Camw (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence the subject meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Also, youth international appearances don't confer notability, only full senior ones. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so i understand now, you can tag this for a speedy deletion and delete it until I find appropriate evidence!

Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 2 March 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama & Homosexuality

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

While interesting, and conceivably a useful analysis, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which may not contain or synthesise original research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unnecessary fork from 14th Dalai Lama#Sexuality. I would generally suggest to merge, but in this case the daughter article is completely unsourced and filled with synthesis and original research. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In between the messy syntax, there might be a crumb of an article, but I'm not sure it's a notable topic by itself. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The mans point of view belong in his article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:43, 4 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis Bug Tracker

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

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage from reliable third parties, and there is no such references in the article. Haakon (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - Refs are a bit hard to find, since searched for "Mantis" and "bugs" brings in so much unrelated materials. However, there are a few independent sources out there, including one I think pushes Mantis across the threshold of notability. Mantis won a Linux Journal "Editors Choice" award in 2006. There's also this decent old source here, as well as some "bloggish" refs that might not make our cut. I was actually surprised at the thinness of sources... Studerby (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Studerby. --Karnesky (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Technology news sites have reviewed and commented on this software as per this list of references in the press. More notably there are also numerous references to this software in a number of software engineering books. It's generally hard to see who is using bug tracking software because it's often used for internal specialised purposes in small developer environments. However, saying that, there are many references to MantisBT in places where notability of different bug tracking software matters (such as this stackoverflow.com search query). Discussion sites like stackoverflow.com are highly specialised in the field of software engineering making it easy to see what the general consensus is (amongst software engineers) on which bug tracking software is widely used. MantisBT also appears within the top few results for Google searches on "bug tracker" and "bug tracking". Doing a Google search for "link:mantisbt.org" yields hundreds of publicly facing bug trackers running MantisBT. Michigangold (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just reviewed the article and all the sources are primary sources or are otherwise unreliable/unfit for an encyclopedia, even ours. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retag as needing improved references. The references supplied by Michigangold are more than sufficient, but need to be incorporated into the article. Greenman (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also note that a few sources can be found from news archive. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [3] Linux Journal, [4] [5] Linux.com, [6] TechRepublic. A little book coverage as well [7] [8]. Pcap ping 20:10, 2 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing for icse

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

Article was prodded by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) with the concern "written as a howto guide rather than an encyclopedia article." Comment by author on talk page indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, so I'm bringing it here.

For my part, the article is not an encyclopedic subject and written like a how-to guide; therefore, my opinion is delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. If there are sources that discuss this subject, they might better be placed at Indian Certificate of Secondary Education, which is itself in need of some attention. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Indian Certificate of Secondary Education. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge - Its a WP:HOWTO (or its trying to be) that is (IMHO) Original research.. Some Refs seem somewhat pointless ... "The burden of studies, examinations, projects and growing up all add up to the pressure on a teenager." Does this need a Cite ??? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:54, 4 March 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) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Abraham

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

Article is about a non-notable professor. The fact that he has published articles/books does not indicate notability. There are zero third-party independent sources to establish his notability. The external links section only includes articles that Abraham himself published and pages on the University of Texas site. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a CV. Note, author is User:Johnpabraham, which says WP:COI to me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already made note of it at COIN. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What is his h-index? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to calculate it, though I would think such an arbitrary statistic would not be relevant for determining notability. He could have written 80 zillion important scientific papers, but what matters is if he has been covered by third-party sources. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of WP:PROF, citations to the subject's research papers are considered to be acceptable as sources because they demonstrate impact. These citations are the basis for the h-index, so it is far from arbitrary. The major indexing services (e.g. WoS and GS) allow one to readily calculate h. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- professor is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have done good work and made an impact at his university, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. A search on Google Search returned several false positives, mostly for seems to be another researcher by the same name specializing in heat transfer. Even with those false positives, the h-index is 4, which is too low for WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:07, 3 March 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) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Political Tradition

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

Well, referenced, but ultimately an essay.

Given that we've already got Westminster system and plenty articles on Politics of the United Kingdom etc., I can't see much scope for anything other than an essay here. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith contribution, but subject matter is far too vague to warrant a separate article from the ones we've already got. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuitable for Wikipedia, but is there some other Wiki area it could be transferred to? --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 7 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evilwm

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)

Possibly non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Primarysources tag has been languishing on the article for years. Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find some mentions in lists of similar WMs, but that's about it. Pcap ping 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont know how wikipedia members uses google to find references to things, but i found many and many actual articles and pages. I dont know how you can judge this WM, cuz it released about 4 months ago(2009-10-09 [[9]]) and it's in active development(maybe not so active, but still alive). This is some referrers: [[10]](from very popular and respected russian IT resource), [[11]], [[12]], [[13]]. All of this resources says that this is very good WM, also, as you can see, all messages written in last year => it's still alive. iorlas (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike vote by proven meatpuppet of Mclaudt[reply]
Keep It is well optimized lightweight window manager, so evidentially it is very important for programmers to know about this project to analyze its open code and research the evolution of tiling windows manager to sum all + and develop the best one. It has also a youtube representation — an important rare fact that proves its notability in linux community [14]. Gkrellm (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Since Habrahabr.ru has been invoked as source in multiple AfDs of window managers and other software, I'm starting a centralized discussion about it on WP:RS/N#Habrahabr.ru. Pcap ping 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's possible to find sites with some info about evilwm. Like http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20081209154246166/evilwm.html or different wikis (gentoo/arch linux wikis). And of course it's easy to find a lot of posts in blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's nothing more than a reproduction of manufacture's description. Pcap ping 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be Meatpuppetry here. I have been spammed an email to support for keep by User:Mclaudt (now currently blocked) as if a few minutes also with articles for Wmii, QVWM, and Dwm Antonio López ^(talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows notability, added references and some copy editing. --TitanOne (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding and adding those links to the article. However, it's not clear that any of them are reliable sources. The links are, respectively, (1) a reproduction of evilwm's man page (a primary source), (2) a software repository, (3) an apparently self-published web page, (4) a software directory, and (5) another software repository. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, these are all blogs, directory listings and primary sources inadmissible under WP:N and WP:RS. The same goes for Mclaudt's earlier sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two additional sources as external links: PC World and Linux Magazine. These are WP:RS however their coverage is brief; further indication of WP:N is needed. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What real reason did you have for deleting this? All you've done is made it harder for me to find information about Evilwm. Thanks for going out of your way to make my life harder, because just leaving the page here would have basically ruined Wikipedia. Good use of your time, people. 01:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)RyeGye24

Delete: WP:N. I found no signs of nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE take away blogs and tech wikis and there's no significant coverage. I don't think a case can be made for passing GNG.Nefariousski (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment evilwm is widely mentioned as a standard small windows manager. While notability has not been established, non-notability is not obvious to me. It's mentioned in the book The Official Damn Small Linux(R) Book: The Tiny Adaptable Linux(R) That Runs on Anything but (based on Amazon 'search inside'), like the 2 external links, there is little coverage . Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Evilwm is a redlink in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guide_to_X11/Window_Managers so repurpose this content in that wikibook, until Wikipedia-level notability can be established. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:22, 8 March 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.

KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.14 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2011 (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 NO CONSENSUS default to KEEP Notability claims clearly on the fence, give this one some more time. Mike Cline (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Chronicles

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)

New journal, only 1 issue published as yet. Does not even have an ISSN. Article creation premature: this cannot yet be notable. The article mentions that the journal is indexed in the World Shakespeare Bibliography and by the Modern Language Association. It is not clear to me how discerning these databases are and I feel that this confers at best a marginal notability. In short: this does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Hence delete. Crusio (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First things first: inclusion in the MLA database pretty much means notability in the field of language, literature, and humanities. They are in fact pretty discerning (more so than the World Sh. Bibl., I believe). I have to take the journal's word for this inclusion--apparently the MLA did not get my check for renewing my membership yet, so I couldn't check the MLA Directory of Periodicals. The "weak" part in my keep is that (and Crusio is right here) the journal is very new, and (no disrespect intended) I am not that impressed by the membership of the board: I don't really see any of the Shakespeare bigwigs that I am familiar with. But, the bottomline, as far as I am concerned, is their MLA inclusion. Someone will come along with other data, perhaps, that bolster this case, but for me this is enough. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I finally made it to work and was able to verify that the journal is indeed indexed by the MLA. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the factual update. I'm impressed that BC is already listed. And I appreciate your clarification of facts that, although I personally knew to be true, might otherwise be in doubt. This is totally aside from issues of "voting." As I hoped you can tell, I try to take a long range view of the present discussion. I like to follow Hamlet's Senecan advice to Horatio (modelled, it has been suggested, on Sir Horatio Vere: "Give me that man/That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him/In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,/As I do thee" --BenJonson (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to supply direct documentation to the fact of inclusion in both MLA and World Shakespeare Bibliography data bases. The journal has applied for ISSN but not yet received one. I would add that Crusio, although nominating the page for deletion, apparently did not know what MLA means, a striking indication that his recommendation is based on less than complete knowledge of the relevant facts. I wonder if Drmies would be so kind as to be more specific when he says that "I am not that impressed by the membership of the board." If that is based on his reasoning that "I don't really see any Shakespeare bigwigs," then I would submit that this is hardly a reasoned position. Many members of the editorial board are distinguished academicians, and perhaps it would behoove wikipedians to adopt a somewhat more inclusive definition of "notability" than to imply that only journals started or staffed by "bigwigs" in a particular field should qualify for this designation. Thank you for your consideration. Drmies, I appreciate your support, even if it seems overqualified to me, for inclusion of the journal. --BenJonson (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, members of editorial boards don't put much weight in the balance either way. If no "bigwigs" are included that can be a warning sign, but if many bigwigs are included, that doesn't necessarily mean much either. That's why we don't list board members in journal articles... (see discussion here). --Crusio (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that there is a difference between "distinguished academicians" and "Shakespeare bigwigs." The first do not, in my opinion, add to the notability of a Shakespeare journal. Ben, perhaps my statements seem overqualified to you, but keep in mind that we are on a continuum here, and if that continuum is one of notability we're at the lesser end since the journal is so young and cannot, therefore, have proved itself by being discusses in other sources. Crusio, I beg to differ--if Stanley Wells or Gary Taylor edit a certain new Shakespeare journal, then that journal should be considered notable in an almost hereditary fashion (and we do list editors in journal articles). But that's a discussion for a different place. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, yes I understand that distinction very well, believe me. And I agree with your assessment that this is a continuum and that it is fair to remark that BC may be currently at the "lesser end," which is part of why I stated to Crusius that he might want to take a breather and wait and see what happens over the next year or even six months. He naturally replied that Wikipedia can't really make decisions based on unsourced statements from academic proles (:) like BenJonson. But I have followed the Shakespearean question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now, and the shifts and realignments which are currently taking place behind the scenes are momentous indeed. Some of today's experts will be tomorrow's discredited cheaters, and some of today's nobodies will be tomorrow's experts. Take, for instance, the credentials of Dr. Carole Chaski, one of the editorial board members of Brief Chronicles. She is probably *the* world authority, certainly one of handful who might be regarded as such, on the subject of linguistic identification of authorship. She currently consults with the secret service, among other high profile clients. There is an awful lot of chicanery in this field, much of it by academicians, and some of it by distinguished "bigwigs" in the Shakespeare industry such as Donald Foster, who no longer works in academia after he was successfully sued by Stephen Hatfill for misidentifying him as the anthrax terrorist. Only five years ago, Foster was a "bigwig" in Shakespeare studies. My point is that when you consider what expertise really consists of, Chaski is the expert -- Foster was a wannabee who violated the protocols of scholarship in the course of pursuing his "bigwigdom." He got caught. (If you have the interest, see the introductory essay of BC, here: http://www.briefchronicles.com. Again, thank you for your thoughtful moderation on this point and your consideration of my remarks. I am unfortunately overfamiliarized with wikipedia participants who cannot seem to hold a discussion without larding it with insults. --BenJonson (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not referring to Crusio in the above negative remark about some other wikipedia editors. I have found him always to be courteous, even when he and I don't agree on a particular point.--BenJonson (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --as I expressed on the article talk page both the MLA and the WSB seem to satisfy Criteria 1 ("The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field") - although I now understand that this is a linked essay and not a formal guideline. Especially the MLA, as noted by Drmies, above. Also, the editor, Gary Goldstein, is the previous editor of The Elizabethan Review , ISSN 1066-7059, a semi-annual peer reviewed journal published from 1993 to 1999 on the English Renaissance. Cheers!Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 00:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that having been EIC of a journal that existed for only 6 years adds much to the discussion here. In any case, WP:NOTINHERITED obviously applies. --Crusio (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a journal set up to promote a fringe theory (viz Oxfordian theory). It was recently discussed on the reliable studies board, at which several uninvolved editors expressed the view that it is an unreliable fringe source portraying itself as a normal academic journal: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brief_Chronicles. The author of this article is the founder of the journal and assiduous promoter of the theory on Wikipedia. The journal is not truly notable. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that discussion; thank you for the link. I wish someone had brought that up earlier. However, my one argument for keeping still stands--MLA indexing, which is a big enough deal, in my opinion. I have faith that in the near future some RSes will turn up that will allow editors to insert the appropriate caveats in the article, and some can already be made based on the table of contents of the first volume--I will leave that to the experts (Sh. is a bit too modern for me). Note: I have no desire to ever say that this journal would count as a reliable source for any kind of factual, objective statement. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted yet, and will not until all the remarks of others have been posted. I wonder if Paul Barlowe could clarify a point of confusion. How does one distinguish between a "fringe theory" and an idea that is merely out of favor in the court? This term is repeatedly used regarding the Oxfordian perspective, but has never been justified in an credible manner. Significant numbers of informed scholars and leading Shakespearean actors believe the theory is credible. Given that that is already the case, at what point in the history of the debate would Paul acknowledge that the idea is no longer "fringe." It is incumbent on those who use such terms to clearly define what they mean, and not to assume that they can be meaningfully used without proper definition. In such an instance, proper definition includes specifying what the term does *not* cover. Suppose, for example, that a leading Shakespearean scholar such as Marjorie Garber or Graham Holderness were to announce tomorrow that he or she either 1) fully supported the theory or 2) felt the theory was credible and that wikipedia editors such as Paul Barlowe should stop referring to it as a "fringe theory." Would that constitute sufficient grounds to agree that the term is inappropriate? Or would it require an even more thorough demonstration of its stupidity? -- and if so, what would that look like. I want to know the answer to this question NOW, because even if the majority of editors vote to remove the page NOW, I want to know under what circumstances such a decision would be reversible. Is it too much to ask that wikipedia be held accountable to such a standard of discourse? I hope not.--BenJonson (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this particular new journal. It's very hard to judge a new journal. I'm a little more open to possible notability of such a journal than Crusio. When from a truly major scientific society, like the ACS, any new journal of theirs is certain to be notable, since all their other journals are --and are generally more than notable, generally the standard top level journal in their subject specialties. And if from a major publisher, like one of the best university presses, a publisher where essentially all of its journals are notable, the new one is very likely to be notable also. The same goes for a journal edited by a person extremely notable in the subject. But the question here is whether the "managing Editor" role by Gary Goldstein is sufficient for notability . I do not think so. His previous journal was borderline notable at the very best, being in only 33 WorldCat libraries, which is extremely low for a popular subject like this; it certainly does not make anything else he does notable . He has no published books in WorldCat. The book listed in his cv on the journal page is from a very minor publisher, and does not yet seem to be in any worldCat library. A Google Scholar search for him [15] shows very little. I notice he does not in the cv claim to have a faculty appointment anywhere; I do not think he would himself be notable under WP:PROF. The General Editor, Roger A. Stritmatter, is assistant professor at a minor university. The positions of people on the editorial board matter very little. Chaski may be an expert, but not in English literature. Looking at the authors of articles, very few hold university positions. I notice, interestingly, that many of the people involved in this publication seem to be interested in the fringe position that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare. That would not necessarily rule out this journal, but it does affect the way one might look at the advocacy for the inclusion of the article. The argument above that the people involved are not currently recognized as important in the subject, but soon will be, is typical of a a subject where the correct answer is "not yet notable". BC is far below the lesser end of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG:

Thank you for clarifying that I work a "minor" University, whatever that particular code word means. Actually, all of the members of the BC editorial board are experts, of one form or another, in their particular areas of specialization. And sir, as a matter of fact, under any reasonable application of the notability rules, I do happen to qualify, even though there is no wikipedia page about me. My dissertation was widely covered in the intellectual news media, including (favorably in both instances) in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times, as well as being mentioned in articles in the Washington Post (for which I have written) and Harpers. I have published over sixteen academic articles in peer reviewed journals in my areas of specialization. Now that you have some facts, would you still hold to your old opinion?

You baldly state that "the positions of people on the editorial board matter very little." This statement conveys most tellingly in its absolute lack of any real content. What do you mean by "positions"? If you mean the academic affiliations, then your contradiction is blatant to the point of hypocrisy. You just got through saying that because I'm an assistant professor at a "minor" university, I'm not notable. You can't have it both ways. "Matter very little" -- to who or in what do they not matter? You imply that you are referring to the wikipedia standards of notability, but you make no reference to any relevant language which would justify your inference. Instead, it appears that you are mistaking your own uninformed opinion that, because you disagree with the position advocated, you want (sometimes) to ignore the credentials of those who hold the contrary opinion, with reality. In other instances, you want to use their alleged lack of credentials to argue that credentials are all that matters. I realize that you probably don't see this as a contradiction, but it is. You're trying your best to rationalize the "cognitive disequilibrium" that results from the fact that normally you would respect the academic affiliations of the board members, but in this case you'll make an exception because you don't like what they seem to be saying.

It is also interesting to me in reviewing your remarks to what extent you have selectively developed your case. You refer to a google search on Gary Goldstein, but apparently either did not make a google search on Coppin State University *Associate* Professor Stritmatter, which would have produced dozens of hits, including to some of the sources mentioned above. You state that Dr.Carole Chaski is not an expert in Shakespearean studies. This is correct. Please review her qualifications in light of the declared editorial purpose of the journal in question. The subtitle is "An Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship Studies." The editorial board is designed to maximize professional expertise in those areas which are relevant to the journal's subject of inquiry, which are by no means limited to those narrowly construed as experts in Shakespeare.

I asked Paul Barlowe to justify his use of the standard cant phrase, "fringe" position or topic. I ask you to do the same. Let me tell you what I think you are really saying, and I'll listen politely to any reasoned response that avoids calling me a holocaust denier or similar glib epithets which have besmirched the history of this topic: "because a majority of people in a given field don't agree with something, we will ignore the objective standards which wikipedia has established for determining notability (in this instance, that the primary and most important criterion of notability is that the journal in question be indexed by the relevant academic indexing services, which it is) and side with the majority. We like what the majority says. We don't know anything about the debate, but we feel that wikipedia should not offend powerful majorities. We haven't read the journal in question, know next to nothing about the arguments it makes or the larger intellectual context in which those arguments are made, but we will vote to determine that the article's subject is not notable so that we can uphold wikipedia 'standards.'" Forgive me for remarking (and please don't take it personally) that this strikes me as the blind leading the deaf, dumb, and ignorant.-- (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that disclaimer "please don't take it personally". Otherwise we might all think you're referring to the participants here.

It is telling that 55 percent of the comments so far are from the editor of the journal, which is about par in any discussion in which he participates. And it's hard to know where in the scholastic firmament such a noted scholar fits when he creates a Wikipedia page for the sole purpose of supporting an argument on a deletion page.

This is just the latest example of how Wikipedia is being used to promote the fringe theory of anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism. Lest one doubts that it is a fringe theory and that the proponents don't think so, take a look at Talk: Shakespeare authorship question, at which the main anti-Stratfordian editor there, Smatprt, regularly quotes WP:FRINGE as justification for his edits. See here (read the bullet points) and the very last comment here. And in fact, he added it as a notable example at the Fringe theory article, because the first rule of PR is any exposure is good exposure as long as they spell the name right (or in this case, get the link right).

My vote? I really don't care. After a long and contentious argument over whether journal this could be considered a reliable source, in which I argued that WP:PARITY applies, it seems apparent to me that a lot of Wikipedian editors who don't really have the background to make judgments about topics they know little about judge only by the arguments made during the process. It also appears that the Wikipedia community apparently doesn't care that its encyclopedia is being used to promote a fringe theory that is dismissed by almost every Shakespeare academic. So go ahead and let him have the article, but I think it only fair that it should be limited to the same word count as the article for the Review of English Studies.

Oh, and to set the record straight: Donald Foster is still very much employed in academia as a Professor of English on the Jean Webster Chair at Vassar College, definitely not a minor university. BenJonson's malicious comments appear to be motivated by professional jealousy and border on slander and should be removed forthwith. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom Reedy

I was wondering when you would guys would show up. Tom, you seem upset that I have made a lot of comments on this page. That may be true, but it is also a red herring. Neither you nor Nishidani have answered my basic question about why Wikipedia standards for notability should be ignored in this case. Your answer seems to be that, according you, any discussion of the Shakespearean authorship question constitutes indulgence in a "fringe theory." I don't think anyone involved in this discussion, in either a minor or a major way, needs to hear that again. It may be that under the protocols as established by Wikipedia, the Shakespeare Authorship entry has been defended in one way or another by other editors under the "fringe theory policy." I have never done so. What I object to, moreover, is the vulgar manner in which you, Nishidani, and others have had recourse to this piece of linguistic property as a stick to beat up on those who have a different perspective than your own, the dominant one. Saying that any doubts about the authorship question amount to indulgence in a "fringe theory" is your way of avoiding the substance of the doubts which have historically been raised as to the bona fides of the traditional Shakespearean attribution, which is increasingly doubted, as you know, even within the academic community on which you and Nishidani depend for your definitions of reality. What you and others really are objecting to about the inclusion of an entry for Brief Chronicles is that to accept it would force you reconsider your own history of the cavalier misuse of these sorts of argument by epithet, by demonstrating that the dispute in question is taking on an increasing level of credibility within higher education. That is manifest by the academic qualifications an affiliations of the members of the BC editorial board, however modest they might seem in comparison to such wunderkinden and Prometheans as a Greenblatt, a Marcus, or a Shapiro.

You seem to have overlooked my call, based on the narrow Wikipedia definition of the term "fringe theory," for some clarification. I am still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to explain to me what would constitute grounds to determine that the theory in question was no longer "fringe." This seems like a reasonable question, to which all Wikipedians would want an answer, but perhaps there are some here who feel that it is not and we should instead all be free to use that term whenever we like without specifying more carefully the conditions under which the label would be removed. But it seems to me that if Wikipedia wants to remain relevant in negotiating disputes of this nature, which are fundamentally historical in nature insofar as they respond to new evidence and evolving standards and modes of inquiry, it ought to pay some attention to such questions. The justice of any quasi-judicial proceeding (of which the present discussion is an instance) necessarily depends on understanding the circumstances under which another judgment would be rendered. This concept is fundamental to any system of justice which recognizes that even courts sometimes make mistakes. So, to, the history of ideas instructs us that experts are routinely wrong, even about matters of their alleged expertise. Can anyone enlighten me on this point?

You write: "It also appears that the Wikipedia community apparently doesn't care that its encyclopedia is being used to promote a fringe theory that is dismissed by almost every Shakespeare academic. So go ahead and let him have the article, but I think it only fair that it should be limited to the same word count as the article for the Review of English Studies." You say that the subject is "dismissed by almost every Shakespearean academic." This is simply not so, and it is a telling point against your interpretation of the present moment that you should feel the need to continue to express your convictions in such quasi-absolutist terms. It is quite true to say that the Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian positions remain a distinct minority within higher education. But that is not the same thing, at all. More importantly, I beg to differ with you on your statement about Wikipedia. It seems to me that the Wikipedia community is in fact doing an excellent job of airing the opinions relevant to the points at issue. It is evident, however, that the community is not entirely in agreement with your characterization of the nature of the dispute. That being said, I appreciate your not jumping into the fray with an immediate recommendation for deletion. As you know, I have great respect for Review of English Studies, as well as for Cahiers Élisabéthains, The Shakespeare Yearbook, and many other academic journals which have been kind enough to publish my (or your) work.

I established the wikipedia page for Dr. Chaski for many reasons, not the least of which is that she is a notable modern intellectual whose accomplishments have been deemed notable by every editor who has commented on the talk page of the entry. If you dispute the notability of the entry, I request you to so in the appropriate venue, and not to violate the fundamental rule of Wikipedia editing, namely to "assume good faith," by imputing to me motives about which you are wholly uninformed.

Finally, let me address your point about the good and learned Dr. Foster. Firstly, if I erred in stating that he was no longer employed at Vassar, Dr. Foster has my heartfelt apology. Secondly, as to your extraordinary statement that this error was motivated by some personal malice, I respectfully repeat my comment above about motives. You need to be careful here, Tom, because malice is a legal term, and you have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate it. Having apologized for perhaps misunderstanding Dr. Foster's current employment, let me ad that it is wholly undeniable that Dr. Foster's work has been substantially discredited in the eyes of many over the past ten years. It is evident that his scholarship over-reached his understanding of his subject matter. Anyone who has followed his case will be aware of this. As for my alleged "jealousy" of Dr. Foster, Tom, you surely are creative about psychoanalyzing people of whom your acquaintance is grossly superficial. That is really really quite funny. Believe me, there are people of whom I'm jealous, Tom. I'm jealous, for example, of Dr. Chaski. I'm jealous of Graham Holderness. I am jealous of William Leahy. I am jealous of Douglass Brooks. I am jealous of Marjorie Garber.I'm sometimes even jealous of Daniel Wright (not, however, in any of these cases from psychopathology you ironically impute to me). I am not, however, jealous of Donald Foster, Tom. I do not regard him as a credible or noteworthy scholar, and credibility in my book (which means having a credible argument, supported by facts, and when you make a factual error, being able to admit it candidly) would be a prerequisite to any jealousy I might feel for a fellow scholar. If a person does not have credibility in my eyes he is unworthy of my jealousy, no matter how famous he may seem to be. Notice, however, that I have not involved myself in editing Dr. Foster's Wikipedia page. While he is not notable as a scholar, in my estimation, he is notable, as a lesson of how not to do scholarship. It is never wise to expose oneself to a multi-millon dollar lawsuit by falsely accusing an innocent man of being a biological terrorist, and I advise you, as a fellow Wikipedian, not to follow his example. --BenJonson (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just using wikipedia to promote itself, abusing space for publicity. I'm sure there's a policy regarding self-promotion here, but can't recall it.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to join my voice with Nishidani's and, in the spirit of the Shakespearean works, vote to immolate this entry. It would be a fitting result, although a setback for Wikipedia. However, I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say before casting my vote. And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of what additional merit is required for a scholarly journal to be considered notable. Anyone? --BenJonson (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per DGG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's refocus, shall we? Here is the most relevant portion of the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

"If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable. If a journal meets none of these conditions, it may still be notable, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. See the Notes and Examples section below before applying this guideline.

  1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
  2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
  3. The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.

(my emphasis)

I think it is important to clearly record this reference here, on this page, because the above discussion makes me wonder if those voting definitively to delete the page in question are familiar with either the facts of the case or the protocols that we are advised to employ in interpreting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that there is no qualification here. The guidelines state that "if the journal meets any one of the following conditions....then it is notable. They do not require all three to be met. They do not say that if one of the criteria is met then the journal may be notable. They say that if any one of the conditions has been met, then the journal is, ipso facto, notable.

The guidelines continue to stipulate that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. A few simple mentions in passing that "Journal of Foo is an important journal" should not be taken as evidence that Criterion 1 is satisfied."

Now, it is in evidence that the journal in question is included in the major indexing services in its field. The two most influential and relevant are the MLA database and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, which are the equivalent in the humanities and Shakespearean studies respectively, of the examples used in the Wikipedia protocols. I fail to see how anyone can reconcile a vote to delete based on these stated criteria. Hence we have the wholesale incorporation, largely if not exclusively for the sake of its rhetorical effect, of wikipedia policies on "fringe theories."

So, here is a question for the real Wikipedia experts: are ANY OTHER "fringe theories" for which it can be shown that journals promoting those theories are in fact indexed by the major indexing services in the field? And is there a valid precedent, in which such an example (assuming one can be produced)was deleted on grounds of a failure of notability? If so, I will gladly vote with the current majority. If not, I will hold my vote an abeyance indefinitely until someone satisfies my previous requests, still unanswered, for clarification on other contentious points. Why would Wikipedia invent a special exception for this particular topic? Why would it condone allowing unsubstantiated accusations of "fringe," or irrelevant claims that this or that person associated with the journal is or is not in himself or herself notable -- to trump the clearly stated protocols by which Wikipedia allegedly determines notability? A one sentence reply or simple vote with the present majority will not answer this objection. It will merely make it more obvious that the majority wants to have its way without considering the historical complexities of the case, and is moreover willing to ignore the relevant Wikipedia protocols in order to get its way, putting power above rational and informed debate. Thank you for your consideration.--BenJonson (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, here's the most relevant portion of the page: "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more editors on how notability may be interpreted. It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article, and may become accepted as a guideline at a future date." I feel sure this discussion will impact the future content of that page. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I moved your comment, which interrupted my analysis, down here so that I could respond to it without creating chaos. You were so eager to get into a duel about which is the most important part of the cited page that you interrupted me before readers could get a chance to follow my logic. You have a point, and I should have been more careful about noting the distinction you make. But here is my question: Is there a better Wikipedia source that could inform our discussion? Is there any actual official "guideline" on this topic? If not, I suggest that your point verges on immateriality. Wikipedia is a community of contributing editors, some of whom have thought more carefully and thoroughly about dispute resolution than others. If there is no official Wikipedia policy on how to help resolve this question, then the next best thing is the unofficial analysis of a group of seasoned veterans who have put a great deal of energy into proposing a policy, which is what the page in question represents (thank you, Crusio and other editors of the page!). Your argument that the contents of the present discussion will influence the development of the page in question would be considered by anyone who understands principled debate to be a slippery fish. Even if you are right that the present discussion would lead to a reformulated "policy" which would retroactively ban the BC entry (which I'm not so sure you are), what sort of standard of fairness does that imply? You've made quite a few edits to the SA page which impute all sorts of logical fallacies to the skeptics (many of which apply also to scholars who support your position, if sometimes in different ways, although you seem unaware of it). What kind of logic allows you to change the terms of a contract, to delete the "opt out" clause, after you sold me a house with a leaky basement? to At present we have the guidance as worded; changes to it might apply after the fact to other disputes. For you to read backwards from imaginary changes that have not been made and may not even have been contemplated to try to influence this debate is just....("break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue") wholly inappropriate.

I note, moreover, that you have not disputed my statement that the logic of these informed comments, if we accept their guidance, pretty much obliges us to vote support a "Keep" vote. Nor have you supplied an answer to my question about whether there is precedent for banning an entry on a peer reviewed academic journal, excerpted by leading indexing services, based on the logic that it allegedly represents a "fringe" theory. Surely, given all the talk and policy of "fringes" and "fringe theories," there must be other instances of this contradiction. I'm giving you a chance to convince me with evidence. Please set aside for a moment your tendency to indulge in head-butting with me about what is or is not important, and give me an example that would constitute informative precedent for the vote to delete. If you'll kindly do that, and also state the conditions under which you would theoretically concede that the theory in question is no longer "fringe," then I'll gladly vote to delete my own entry, and I won't look back. I have other, better things to do with my time, like create or improve other Wikipedia pages which provoke less angst. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listing in MLA establishes sufficient notability, which is further reinforced by listing in WSB and having met other WP inclusion criteria pointed out by BenJonson. Any COI issues can be dealt with as the editing of the article progresses; this is not a discussion of COI. Inclusionability is not based on age or length of existence. The WP guidelines are clear. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note and reminder Oh my, I seem to have unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest here. This is a reminder to contributors to this discussion that the topic at hand is not whether the "authorship question" is fringe science or not, neither is it about the perceived academic quality of participants to this debate, nor is it about the value of the relative positions of "Oxfordians" or "Stratfordians" or other partisans. The only question that we are concerned with here is whether this journal is notable. The closing admin should take note of the fact that BenJonson (according to his user page and remarks made here) has a COI (he is the General Editor of this journal). As for BenJonson's question on my talk page, whether I want to reconsider my nomination given the current discussion: No, I don't. Although I value Drmies' careful evaluation (but leading to only a "weak keep", I should say), I value DGG's opinion even more (and note that DGG is even more committed than I am to keeping articles about journals). The long defenses of the journal posted here have a perverse side-effect: if so many words have to be spend to argue notability, there actually cannot be much there... Usually AfD discussions concerning journal articles are pretty brief and factual. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, Thank you for the clarification and for restating your position. Since, however, at least two participants have alleged or implied that the issue in fact is one of "fringe science," that has tainted the discussion. There is therefore documented in the discussion an unresolved conflict over the basis for a decision; allegations of "fringe science" have inappropriately been used to determine "notability." This seems particularly significant given that no one has still offered even a grain of a response to my question of under what conditions a journal in this question might actually obtain "notability," since the suggested guidelines articulated on Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) have not been applied by those voting for deletion. Instead, it has even been suggested that notability should be denied, hysteron proteron, because at some future point in time, those guidelines might actually be changed in order to justify the deletion of this very article! One reason the discussion has involved so many words is that so many seem reluctant to engage in good faith to clarify such matters of common concern to Wikipedia. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, some light deserves to be shed on that question. --BenJonson (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify even more: whether this is a journal devoted to a fringe topic or not is not really relevant either. What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N. It is unlikely that WP:Notability (academic journals) would be modified just for this single case (do I detect some hubris here?) In any case, it is not a guideline but just an essay basically only representing the personal opinion of some editors. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with your statement that "whether this is a journal devoted to a fringe topic or not is not really relevant." If anything I said seemed to imply otherwise, I must have been sloppy in my exposition. However, Crusio, I don't understand your next sentence: "What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N. WP:Notability (academic journals) is unlikely to be modified just for this single case." The position clearly articulated on this page by all those voting against deletion, and by myself, is that the criteria outline in the referenced page (whatever you want to call it) have been met. I further stated my opinion that in the absence of better guidance, the page in question should be regarded as the best reference currently available on the subject. The second part of your sentence does not seem in my understanding to jibe very well with the first. But if it means what it seems to me possibly to mean, I would reply that I did not claim that the page was unlikely to be modified for this single case. I questioned the relevance and appropriateness of Tom Reedy's introducing a claim, projecting that such modifications would take place, as an argument in the discussion. This is not fair game. I have not heard anything yet to cause me to modify my opinion on that point.--BenJonson (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, they are two sentences, not one: "What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N." and "WP:Notability (academic journals) is unlikely to be modified just for this single case." They appear to be one because the links butt heads. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I normally find DGG very persuasive, but not in this case. This article meets our guidelines. Also, I read the article carefully and found it to be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Would you mind clarifying exactly how it meets our guidelines? --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ret. Prof, an Oxfordian colleague of "Ben Jonson", was specifically canvassed by him to comment here. See User talk:Ret.Prof. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. Yes, its true that I asked Ret.Prof, who I met through his editing and oversight on the page Pasquill Cavaliero, to examine the talk page here and offer his comment. Is that prohibited? If so, I would appreciate your pointing me to the relevant protocol. Also, I wonder if you might be so kind as to state your evidence for the characterization that RetProf is an "Oxfordian colleague." Did you do any research before making this characterization? Or are you just assuming that no one would vote in favor of not deleting the page based unless he or she was one of my "Oxfordian colleagues." For my part, I have no idea what RetProf thinks about the Oxfordian question. But you appear to have "inside knowledge." Please explain yourself. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the Prof has expressed Oxfordian views in the past. I apologise if I am mistaken. Yes, it is not considered appropriate to "canvass" editors with a view to bolstering a specific point of view in a discussion. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/********* The statement by Paul about me is totally false. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) **********/[reply]

If "memory serves"? What the heck does that mean? Can you possibly be any less specific? In any case, please be advised that your scenario that I recruited RetProf because he is part of some Oxfordian cabal is simply a fantasy on your part. I posted the links in my response, Paul, which documented the history of my acquaintance with him. I didn't ask you, moreover, for your opinion about "what is considered appropriate." I asked you for a link to the policy to which you allude. I think I am not the one to whom you primarily owe an apology.--BenJonson (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the authorship sympathies of Ret.Prof have anything to do with his interpretation of how it meets the guidelines. Reviewing his contributions and talk page, it seems to me he has much more expertise in Wikipedia policies than I have, and I'd really like to know his answer to Crusio's question. Several times when I thought I understood a policy it turned out I was mistaken, and in any case reading the opinions of others is instructive in learning the policies, which I am trying to do. I complained above that many questions seem to be decided by people who don't know anything about the subject, but I don't believe Ret.Prof is an example of this. I want to add that I am especially heartened by reading this on his page: "I hate bitter infighting and users who are skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out." Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Paul's response on "canvassing", I think he is mistaken. Here is the actual policy wording: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive.

Ben's request for an opinion was acceptable as the message was not "written to influence the outcome". Ben wrote: "Would you be so kind as to review the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles and, if you feel so inclined, to express an opinion?" - Nothing in that message even hints at an attempt to "influence the outcome". I hope this clarifies things for both Ben and Paul. Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smatprt, for doing what Paul would not, namely citing the actual relevant policy. Anyone who reviews my public comment to RetProf will see that I in no way sought to prejudice his response. I solicited his opinion as a senior wikipedia editor. By the way, Tom, thank you for your clarifying point. I agree with you, also, that the authorship sympathies of RetProf, which are still entirely unknown to me and appear to have been fabricated by Paul, are irrelevant to the question at hand. --BenJonson (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the MLA establishes notability. They have very strong criteria for inclusion. Methinx (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really have taken offense at the false accusations and personal attacks leveled at me by Paul B. If you think for one moment I will allow you to intimidate me, you are sadly mistaken. I now strongly believe the article should be kept! I hope that the closing Admin will take your attempts to corrupt the process into account!!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These fits of hysterics are becoming downtight ridiculous. I wrote that "if memory serves, the Prof has expressed Oxfordian views in the past. I apologise if I am mistaken." So, I may have misrememered and have said as much. These wild claims of fabricating evidence and false accusations merely indicate an inability of some editoers associated with this position not to see consipracies everywhere. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"misrememered" "editoers" "fits of hysterics" "downtight ridiculous" . . . There should be a literacy test for Wikipedia editors! In any event, I accept your apology and suggest we get back to the matters at hand - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a maturity test for other editors. These comments merely display your ignorance. These errors are all typos, genius. They arise because of the layout of the "qwerty" keyboard and the fact that I am writing very quickly. This is because I have other things to do. If you can't understand the difference between literacy and hand-eye-coordination you really have no place here. When, like, me, you have published three books and many, many articles you may be able legitimately to comment on my "literacy" Paul B (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you made my point. Your errors are because you "type very quickly". In other words you are sloppy and careless. And it is the reason we are having this conflict. You made a false accusation because you didn't check your facts. Having "other things to do", is no excuse for being sloppy and careless here. Therefore I suggest that you think first, slow down and and use SpellCheck. The truth is that your edits have been weighed, measured and found wanting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a long-time reader of and discussant on Wiki,previously active on many of the authorship pages, as well as a contributor to scholarly journals, both orthodox and non-Stratfordian, including, in the near future, Brief Chronicles. I am therefore happy to disclose my interest in the authorship question, meanwhile realising that almost all arguing here have an interest one way or the other in the same question. However, that should not be the issue. The issue, as I understand it, is notability and I agree that the MLA listing establishes it. I also wonder whether, if this was a new Stratfordian journal, there would be as much argument regarding deleting it. Mizelmouse (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The call to delete states that "this does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N." The discussion has repeatedly proved this to be in error. In over four days, no response has been given by those moving to delete to repeated questions about what would constitute notability, given that they claim the journal currently does not qualify. Attempts to prejudice the discussion with false speculations about motivations and collusion are documented. Use of atrocious spelling by those attempting to define what constitutes a notable academic journal are documented. Attempts to undermine the validity of comments in WP:Notability (academic journals) ignore the fundamental fact that the entire motion to delete is predicated on these comments as if they are standards for adjudication, and therefore if these are mooted, so is the original proposal, rendering the entire discussion irrelevant and logically defeating the motion to delete before it began. Let's all get on to more important things, like improving Wikipedia.--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Most of this discussion is indeed irrelevant. We do not have articles for every new journal that comes out. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Paul. Perhaps I could ask you a couple of questions: First, how many new scholarly journals that deal with English literature, to your knowledge, have started or wished to start Wiki articles? And second, how many of those have been deleted? Mizelmouse (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what would be even more interesting to know is how many Wikipedia articles about scholarly journals that deal with English literature were started and written by their general editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting , Mizelmouse. And how is this question relevant? Paul B (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A worthy question. Within the past month, I have proposed four new journal entries. Three have been considered unworthy of opposition. Only one has provoked a call for speedy deletion. Perhaps Paul, since he takes such an interest in this question, and possess such a finely honed sense for "relevance," has more comprehensive statistics.--BenJonson (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? All I can see is Cahiers Élisabéthains, which I gave the benefit of the doubt, given that it has been published since 1972 and is published by the CNRS, and The Shakespeare Yearbook (similar: 1990 and Texas A&M). I don't find any other new journal articles in your edit history. The fact that they "have not been challenged" may just mean that nobody noticed them yet (despite my daily "trawling" of the "new pages" for journal articles). --Crusio (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: not that all this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, of course. But this discussion has degenerated a long while ago. --Crusio (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Crusio is right. I took the time to fix format and obvious typos. (Crusio's English is very good considering it is a second language). I don't envy the Amin who has to sort through this AfD. This is a good faith edit and if anyone takes offense, feel free to revert. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long history of agreeing with Drmies about journal notability, and it was Drmies and I who largely wrote WP:SJ on that exact subject. Our reasoning in that essay is, at least in part, about the amount of "benefit of the doubt" that Wikipedia should give to scholarly journals in notability debates--and our conclusion is that substantial "benefit of the doubt" should go in favour of inclusion.
In this case, there is doubt. I give particular weight to Crusio's nomination and DGG's supporting remarks, but I also give particular weight to Drmies' response about the MLA database.
Given that there is doubt, I can only go with weak keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, thanks for clarifying the principle of "benefit of the doubt," and for your support for the preservation of the entry. It looks to me like your vote did not tally. Did you intend it to? If so, you may wish to supply the required formatting. With your vote, the tally is 8 "keep" and 5 "delete." --BenJonson (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry about it, BenJonson. My words appear exactly as I intended, and the official line is that this is a reasoned debate rather than a vote. In other words, the person who closes this debate will read what I said closely--along with the essay I cite, if they are not familiar with it--and will give it the appropriate weight.

The closer is looking for "consensus", which is not a word that Wikipedia chooses to define (and there are good and valid reasons why it should remain vague. You will come to appreciate why this is so if you participate in significant numbers of AfDs). "Consensus" does not mean "unanimity", but it does mean that an opinion from a well-established user in good standing can sometimes be sufficient to prevent an article from being deleted--the more so if there are several such users.

In particular, the closer is looking for a consensus to delete the article (which should be supported by well-reasoned arguments that are not refuted). If no such consensus is apparent, then the closer may decide that the outcome of this debate is "no consensus"--which means "no consensus to delete", i.e. the article is kept for the moment.

However, a "no consensus" outcome does not prevent subsequent deletion discussions, so if you strongly feel this article should be kept, you should add reliable sources which are independent of this publication to it as soon as these become available.

The (admitted) lack of reliable sources, apart from the MLA database, is the deletion camp's strongest argument and to be completely candid, I am not at all sure that it has been overcome. If the debate is closed with the arguments as they currently stand, then this matter will fall within "admin discretion", i.e. the person who assesses this debate would be within their rights to decide either way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, you should have disclosed that you were asked[16] to participate in this AfD by one of the keep proponents. Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm quite familiar with consensus, having grown up in a Quaker meeting. In such a context, the concept of consensus is predicated on a willingness to engage in an active dialogue, which includes responding to the voiced concerns of the other participants in the discussion. I hope that those responsible for rendering a decision in this instance will review to what extent such an obligation of engagement has or has not taken place. I have repeatedly requested, for example, that those responsible for urging the deletion of this article specify the conditions under which they believe notability might be met, and even offered to vote for deletion if this and some other considerations could reasonably be fulfilled. There has been a conspicuous silence in response to these requests for clarification. I'm not sure that under such circumstances (let alone the repeated personal attacks and slurs which have characterized the remarks of several who voted in this discussion in other wikipedia contexts) the tradition of decision by consensus can have much meaning. --BenJonson (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, S Marshall, for weighing in; it seems to me you've summarized pretty well where the discussion is at--and it is true that inclusion by the MLA is my only keep-argument. Usually, such inclusion means that other sources are available that bolster the argument for keeping the article, but that does not seem to be the case for this journal. One such argument could be a proven relevance to the field, which here cannot possibly be proven since there's only one issue out. Another argument could be the scholarly weight of the editorial board, and there seems to be a consensus here that this weight is not particularly great (and I agree). So that leaves a weak, weak keep argument at best--and BenJonson, if it is my position at all to give you advice, the more you put your hand on one side of the scale, the more it seems to tip to the other side. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, should you have disclosed that you were asked [17] to participate in this AfD by Drmies, one of the weak keep proponents per Nsk92 (talk) ? ? Again, this is a good faith question as I respect your weak keep, but stand behind my Strong Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time a specific user (as opposed to a Wikiproject or a deletion sorting list) is notified about a specific AfD, this constitutes a form of canvassing, that needs to be disclosed, as a matter of form. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Paul B's disclosure of RetProf's canvassing was entirely legitimate, contrary to the subsequent "clarification" of Wikipedia policy. His only error was impugning the said RetProf with the belief of Oxfordism, which mistake caused RetProf to strengthen his "keep" reccomendation. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof, you've been around here, and I respect your work--you can see easily enough why I "canvassed" S Marshall (and of course I gladly accept your good faith). We've worked together on that journal standard, and you can also see that I did not ask him to vote any specific way; moreover, I had no way of knowing that he would vote the same way I did. Nsk92, I'm sorry, given that S Marshall does not have a history (as far as I'm aware) of voting one way or another on these matters, I think that canvassing is a bit too strong of a word here. I hope it is obvious that I was asking a fellow scholar for an opinion, and I hope also that it is obvous that this wasn't "written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion." How about a round of good faith for everyone present? BTW, I think that the weakness of my keep should indicate sufficiently that I don't have a dog in this fight. But I'm sorry if my attempt at asking S for his opinion brings him into disrepute--that was never my intention. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about matters of protocol and of proper form. When someone asks an individual user (for whatever reason) to participate in an AfD, this fact should be disclosed, no exceptions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it is being asked explicitly: in order to have a keep on this article, what is needed is that WP:N is satisfied. This means that we need independent reliable sources discussing the journal and establishing its notability. In journal-related AfDs, as Drmies and S.Marshall already say, we usually take inclusion into major databases as indicating that a RS finds the journal notable. Drmies and S.Marshall find inclusion in MLA enough for a (very) weak keep vote. With all respect for these two respected editors I am not so sure about that and follow DGG (who usually fights very hard to keep journal articles). (That's "respect" twice in the same phrase, but I just had a transatlantic flight behind me and am waiting for my shuttle connection to Washington :-) Apart from this, I intend to stay out of this debate: I have learned to steer away from the highly-charged, highly-emotional wikidramas. --Crusio (talk) 21:56, 8 March 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.

Nagy Sadeq Shurrab

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 all to respective album articles. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Root of All Evil (song)

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

This individual song, along with The Glass Prison, This Dying Soul, Repentance (song), The Shattered Fortress, make up Dream Theater's Twelve-step Suite. Although the Twelve-step Suite has received enough coverage in reliable sources to make it notable, each individual song in the suite does not have enough coverage to warrant an entire article to itself.

As such, this nomination is not just for The Root of All Evil (song), but also for:

Note that Repentance (song) is currently a redirect to Systematic Chaos, the album it was released on. Una Laguna^Talk 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to respective album articles, kind of like how Repentance (song) is. They are all unsourced and have an unencyclopedic format, considering the indepent section for "movements" and such. None of them seem to have singles attributed to them, either. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to respective album articles - as suggested above. This is the best option for procedural reasons. If any Dream Theater fans happen to read this, I suggest that all of those album articles have well-constructed links to Twelve-step Suite because that article is surely notable for the band's history. There is just no need for awkward tri-directional links among suite, albums, and songs. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 2 March 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) CTJF83 chat 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay exorcism

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

Neologism which seems to be sourced to a single incident. The exorcism is described as ridding the person of a "homosexual demon" -- not of homosexuality -- so is really just a "normal" exorcism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator appears to have failed again to apply the guidance of WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search shows that exorcisms to stop people being gay is not a single recent incident, further cases now added. This is not a neologism, none of the words is original, this is not a newly coined phrase, it is a description of a topic. It is clear that if the article topic is a form of exorcism of a demon (the sources are mixed on whether the intent is to exorcise a demon or just change the person's orientation) then this of itself is not a reason to delete unless the topic is adequately covered by exorcism in which case an argument could be made for a merge. However the current topic of exorcism makes no mention of gay or homosexual exorcisms. Ash (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could seriously stand to be improved and is rather POVish, but there clearly are adequate RS'es which describe such a term. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on. It's a bit POVish and needs expansion - but these are issues that can be fixed without deleting the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work already done on the article by Ash, primarily, has addressed any concerns I see being raised by the nominator. It's a noteworthy topic, and the article is clearly not about one single event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sorry, I find the assertion in the nomination that this term is a neologism -- based on a single incident -- hard to take seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dennis The Tiger - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs much expansion, but deserves an articles. E2eamon (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repulsive and weird but it has sources to show notability. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ban Nominator - nomination rationale is non-sensical and obviously motivated by concerns other than the quality of Wikipedia. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:15, 5 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harikesa Swami

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harikesa Swami

Articles for deletion/Robert Campagnola

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

W* Page contained potentially libelous text about a living person. Not neutral. RobertC - Hari (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What in the article is potential libel? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Previous AfD was closed as keep for Robert Campagnola here. I suggest any editor must remove ANY potential libel text immediatelly without a delay. There have been no evidence from any secondary sources to suggest that Robert_Campagnola is the same living person as Harikesa Swami, ~~at least I could not find any. I suggest that this article is kept but any reference to any Campagnola is removed. Morever I have seen unconfirmed claims that this Swami has died in 1998.~~ Wikid ^as© 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for removing stuff that is 'libelous' from the article. Some of it was not actually! So why do you keep removing! I do not want to have the article deleted. The website clearly states that it is the same person. http://www.robertcampagnola.com/content/about.txt?883 How to make sure this article is kept? Can somebody help? Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Campagnola (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the vandalism surrounding this article and others related to it, someone has signed that they are Robert Campagnola. This is untrue. Robert Campagnola has never written that last comment. I should know as I am him. I have added historically accurate information into the history of Harikesa Swami. If you do not like this information and cannot tolerate that someone could have done something worthy of historical note in 30 years, then kindly agree to delete this page. I did not create it, I do not want it. However, if it must be there, then it should at least be true and relevant. If the only relevance that you can conceive of is that this person was initiated into a religious movement, then he took some medicines and then left the movement, then there is another agenda here and this is not neutral, neither does it fit within the category of being historically relevant to Hinduism. --Hari 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Hari 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamp108 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFD started by the person the article is about, in dispute (see attempts to wipe the page in the past). Previous AFD failed. Let's move on! - Chopper Dave (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per cites brought up in previous AfD Wikidas pointed out. Libel is a reason to delete that statement, not the whole article. Neutrality is a reason to rewrite those portions (and I have tagged it NPOV). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - however I suggest that since an editor and the subject of the BLP is raising a request that the article about him is deleted, I suggest it could be done. There are other avenues to it, better than AfD. It is done by communication. On the type of material that can be kept see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content‎. It was me to put up the article for AfD first time. I still see no realiable good sources in the article that give any light on the subject, who actually wants the article about him removed. I suggest this may override any reasons of AfD itself as to the existence of the article, but it is not automatic. So even if Devamrita' Dave is voting to Keep, he needs to make sure the article is sourced, and he has not done anything to this effect, except of adding whole bunch of material that is not factual (not sourced).

Wikid ^as© 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I requested for the second time that this article be deleted. As anyone can edit this page, it has become the fashion to put in things that have no historical value and delete that which actually has value in history. When a page has such back and forth as this one has, is there really any value in keeping it around? And the only reason I became involved in this is because the original page where this data appeared and had peacefully remained for over 18 months was vandalized with a redirect to this page and it was rewritten in a nonsensical manner. I am watching this carefully now and attempting to restore it. Previously, the text was agreed to by Chopper Dave who assisted me in putting it in a better format. If this page is to be kept, it should be kept in a proper format. As the history mentioned within is a verbal history as there are no books yet available on the history of this person, the person himself is a great source of what happened to him. Since I am he, and I do know quite well what happened, I tried to save the situation by putting in facts that have a historical interest. I have now shaved that down again. Please see my comment above where I explain that the this Wiki has the problem that anyone can spoof anything, as in the comment supposedly written by myself where I ask the page be kept, or one can create links that supposedly prove something. As the internet can contain any information and its validity is not required, using internet links as proof of something is not valid.--Hari 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Hari 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Article is about a BLP and is based on blogs that make many claims about this individual. Article can be recreated if/when reliable sources are found - but as is, this article should be deleted per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous discussion ended recently with all votes to keep. No new arguments presented here, beside some hoaxes claiming to be the person. Also claim to speedy delete and recreate is not valid. Nothing outrageous found in the article and it reads as an advertisement. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on current state of the article and current sources.(Nonwithstanding the fact that other sources, specifically in other languages exist).

They are clearly biased, usually positively. The person seem to be overly positive about himslef. We aim to avoid presenting opinions as facts, it is not an ad. Thus WP:NPOV has to apply.
Claims in this 'advert' sketch appear to be unverifiable, most of them. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. No exceptions, all unverifiable claims on WP:Truth will be removed. Sources should comply with WP:RS.
A lot of the article (if not the whole lot) is original research. The editor/subject includes information that has never been published before by anyone and is the result of firsthand knowledge, as claimed. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia. Thus all such puffery, OR and unverifiable claims to be removed.
Having checked a number of rather verifiable sources of the previous AfD, I suggest that the article is to be rewritten as suggested by Ism in his speedy delete vote. Nowhere in the article any libel claim can be found and the nominator failed to illustrate libel information anywhere, he seems to have a strange idea on it alltogether, only some clingie claims of a retired meglomaniac as it appears, thus no need to erase the article; nominator did not answer the first question. I am adding a second line for search of the sources based on previous AfD. I wish the article was erased, but now with two AfDs and the whole lot of sources discovered by Gaura it has to stay. Wikid ^as© 00:31, 8 March 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) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C.

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

This is a New York law firm, whose managing partner's page I'm nominating separately. I don't see any recent news hits on the firm. The only google news hits at all were listings in 2006 asking for a paralegal. Shadowjams (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 February 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) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)2010 March 1[reply]

Delete Don't see any reliable, secondary sources. Lots of advertising, but no reporting. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 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. There is sufficient evidence that there is indeed a field of study that involves researching reincarnation. If there are problems with the way the article is written, they can be addressed through editing the content. If the perceived problem is the title, a rename discussion can be held on the article's talk page. The argument that we don't have a similar article on the research of other beliefs is entirely irrelevant. Merger into the main reincarnation article is a bad idea given the length of that article already. I would add that I do not care for the tone of a few of the participants. There are many millions of people from numerous religious traditions around the world who believe in reincarnation, and mocking that belief to score points in an AFD is despicable. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation research

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

This is an original research sythesis of a variety of research programs both legitimate and dubious that involve reincarnation. There are no academic programs, departments, or professional research societies that are organized around "reincarnation research". There are billions of human beings who believe in reincarnation just as there are billions who believe in virgin birth. But we do not have special articles on virgin birth research for obvious reasons just as we should not have an article on "reincarnation resesarch". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose It escapes me how this is OR "sythesis". Please elaborate. Additionally: have never noticed that tenured academics at a top US university study virgin birth; to add a bit of credibility to your analogy, would appreciate if you could alert me to their existence.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

parthenogenesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenogenesis? Thought you were talking about something controversial. Guess your analogy fails. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of researchers at Christian Colleges who make the claim that parthenogenesis proves the possibility of the Virgin Birth. Pretty sure that's a controversial contention. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose~~ merge Synthesis is a + b = c. Tidy up the "= c" by all means, but there's no valid reason to blast a and b out of existence while you're at it. The virgin birth argument is also specious, as it doesn't hold for more relevant topics such as ESP. K2709 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESP is a "more relevant topic"? I wonder how that determination was made. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are well known protocols for obtaining data for testing of both ESP and reincarnation related hypotheses. VB isn't even a field of experimentation, it's a one-off miracle. K2709 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's well-known unreliable protocol, but nothing more rigorous than the guesses of the literalist Christians who advocate for the reality of the virgin birth as a "scientific fact" that is subject to "well known protocols for obtaining data and testing". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose~~ Keep or Merge It would have to be original (unpublished) synthesis for us to be concerned with it running afoul of policy. Then we would have to consider if it could only be original synthesis for us to consider the concept for the article flawed and delete it outright, instead of rewriting or tagging it for cleanup. There have been a number of books written since the 1970s that published a synthesis of research programs on the topic of reincarnation. Whatever the content of our current article, legitimate (non-original) synthesis already exists externally. Because the concept for the article is valid, it shouldn't be deleted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not dispute that there are books written about "reincarnation", can you point to a book that's written about "reincarnation research"? Similar to my virgin birth analogy: there are books written about virigin births, but none about "virgin birth research". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of books listed with Google Books [18] that have a summary of what research has been done and by whom. Even the Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation covers it. Probably every New Agey book trying to make case for reincarnation outside of religious tradition includes a synthetic summary of research to support their argument. If you're looking for more reliable sources, you'll definitely find sources that take a critical/skeptical look at reincarnation research, and of course these synthesize the material together as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it, Nealparr, I can point you to a hundred Christian books that point to parthenogenesis research and claims of the impossible (some of which happens at Christian colleges) for virgin birth research. We don't have articles on virgin birth research because the idealization of "research" legitimacy is simply not there. What we have here is essentially POV-pushing based on one man's program and a bunch of synthetic primary source documents you have pointed us to. Redirect to reincarnation, by all means, but supporting this as a legitimate topic which is a research subject is untenable. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subarticle split off from Reincarnation#Scientific research to cover the subtopic in greater detail. Redirecting it back to reincarnation may "delete by redirect" information not contained in the main article, information for which the split off was created in the first place (per WP:SUMMARY). What you seem to be arguing is that it's not a notable topic that has enough information for a split off. I don't have an opinion on that. I don't, however, believe there are any original synthesis issues here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy you finally understood my argument, I totally disagree with your claim that there is no original research in the section you quote. That section is, in fact, full of original research and blatant mischaracterizations. (e.g. "But other skeptics, such as Dr Carl Sagan, see the need for more reincarnation research." Really? Because my version of the Demon Haunted World says no such thing.) One thing at a time, Neal. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos original research and blatant mis-characterizations, there are sources that confirm that the 1997 edition does contain that words to that effect[19]. Indeed, books.google return a full hit for that very quote. Unomi (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I admire Robert Ehrlich, his summary of The Demon Haunted World is pretty far off the mark in that footnote. Read the actual book, not quotes about the book. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe Ehrlich quotes Sagan correct, then perhaps you accept what The Sceptic's Dictionary writes on this quote from the Demon Haunted World? review of Radin's Conscious Universe"At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (---) and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. They have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.”(Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302). He indeed saw the need for more research, though he didn't really think there would be any confirmation of earlier findings. But in fact there is confirmation of earlier findings - and there is an academic program at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia for this research. Academics in the Netherlands and in India are also doing research on children who has strange memories that can be traced to a previous personality. Deal with it. Hepcat65 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the club of reincarnation-belief apologists is having such a hard time actually figuring out the context of The Demon Haunted World. So I'll tell you: Sagan was saying not that more research dollars needed to be invested in these boneheaded and idiotic claims. Rather, Sagan was saying that the so-called "data" that was "supporting" these subjects should be scrutinized in much the same way that, for example, water memory was debunked. Let's end all this quote mining, m'kay? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose~~ Keep -- flawed reasoning and analogy. There are several academics who are or have been engaged in investigation and research of reincarnation phenomena and their work is notable. The article in question discusses specific methods of research (childhood memories, birthmarks, hypnotic regression, reincarnation beliefs in relation to PTSD or myths about disease). None of these lines of research (save possibly the last) is "standard science" -- the methods are notable (and also criticized) for that. Research in parthenogenesis is "standard science" (DNA testing, mating behavioral analysis, etc.) so the research per se is not notable and therefore no WP article for it. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several academics who have engaged in investigation and research of virgin birth "phenomena" as well. Just stating that something is notable does not make it so. I'm particularly amused by your contention that "standard science" is not notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose~~ Keep as per the reasons stated by EPadmirateur on flawed reasoning and analogy, and by Nealparr on directing back to Reincarnation - that article is already long enough. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the above. But by all means nominate it again later. Mitsube (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere else (probably Reincarnation#Research), or pick a different title. Strictly speaking a page on "reincarnation research" could talk about the research (methods, theory), but not the results. I think this page is more looking for a new title more than anything. However, as an extreme claim, any suggestions of "proof" should be good quality. The page should default to the skeptical position, with the research done being given minor mention and discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with an WP:UNDUE bias, WP:FRINGE sources, and to be of dubious notability. Verbal chat 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nuisance nomination. Artw (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, abject nonsense on a stick. It looks like a POV-fork of reincarnation by someone who has drunk the kool-aid. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATP. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge relevant material. At this point, the article is a re-hash of material from Ian Stevenson and Past life regression. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates our editorial policies as described above. JBsupreme (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reincarnation#Research, especially since some useful references on the prevalence and causes of reincarnation beliefs had been deleted from the version of the article that was nominated for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge relevant material with Past life regression. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To merge Reincarnation research into Past life regression would be like the tail wagging the dog - most past life regression is feelgood theraphy without much research in it, but some past life regression is a legitimate part of reincarnation research. Helen Wambachs, Peter Ramsters and Rick Browns work could all be regarded as serious and successful reincarnation research using past life regression. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you have no independent sources for this demarcation, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reincarnation#Research and Past life regression. No need for a separate article on this. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is sourced, too long to be merged back. As Stephenson exemplified, reincarnation research is a notable topic, to what extent conclusions can be reached or methodologies can be critiqued is not really what afd is for. SA should be well versed enough in wikipedia policy by now to know this. Unomi (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like to make it personal, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources, and the article has good NPOV, well balanced between the "believer" viewpoint and the skeptical viewpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources, Google news search button at the top of the AFD seems to point to even more of them. If you have a problem with how the article is written, or something in it, use the talk page. AFD should be used only as a last resort. Dream Focus 16:14, 8 March 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 Public_holidays_in_the_United_States#Legal_holidays_by_states. I think it would be a valid redirect (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. state holiday

DELETE - I think this article is surplus to requirement (see Public holidays in the United States#Legal holidays by states) The flying pasty (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, the article appears to be redundant. Would a redirect to Public holidays in the United States#Legal holidays by states be in order? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 4 March 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 (G3) by Hit bull, win steak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhael_Trenton

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mikhael Trenton

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

person does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaferM (talk • contribs)

G3 Good catch, new user. Obvious hoax, no hits outside WP and mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:36, 1 March 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 only keep argument seems to suggest a wish to use this article as the project's documentation, but Wikipedia is not your web host. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skyboard - Software

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

Article currently reads like an advertisement and not wikified. Have tagged it for both of these and notability, since it does not suggest the notability of the subject. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is software to run network collaboration boards which are driven and stored by a centralized database engine. Sounds like "project management" under a different fuzz of words. Article is simply a features list that resembles a tutorial. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At present unreferenced and no indication of notability. No quick searches help. A bit Spammy. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The software is designed to be more than just a "project managment" app. The focus is on user to user interaction with a high level of process management of authorized systems that are apart of the users "skyboard network" to then collaborate and build maps of ideas that can then let the user see different views of how things are structured. The need for proper documentation for the project is at a all time high. After 4 years of daily development with no proper documenation manager the current skeleton that is on display here is not showing the whole picture. Please consider the current write up to be a simple minor draft of drafts. Like all projects there has to be development time to work out the kinks so the big picture is made. With a deletion of this current "work in progress" it would yet again slow down the documentation of what is truely unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burndata (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — Burndata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's not a matter of quality or uniqueness, but of notability. Haakon (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and no signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 13:56, 6 March 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) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman Morgan

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

Contested prod. Innkeeper whose notability is not established. In contesting the prod, the creator did assert notability - that of the town this person works in. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources as below. They're not much but they're enough to satisfy WP:N and notability in a local context is still notability:

- DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obituary in the local paper is not the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required for notability. Nuttah (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is that a personal opinion, or do you have a reference to policy to support that assertion? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @663 · 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not reach my standards of notability (for all that's worth). Generally agree that a single obit in local paper is not significant. However, if within that obit something really notable is listed (e.g., was a crew member on the Enola Gay) I might think differently. In this individual's case, the most notable thing in the obituary to me was that "He remembered Albert Einstein watching his platoon practicing military drills". I also went ahead and deleted what I considered a spam link to his real-estate agency(?) which was suffixed to the wikipedia article (can I do that if I'm weighing in on an AfD here?). -Quartermaster (talk) 15:30, 1 March 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 Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by Dloh cierekim . This was also speedily deleted in 2008 for the same reason.

Francis Viner

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

A search on Google and Google News shows no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The page appears to have been created with a conflict of interest and is only supported by self published sources or derivatives thereof. Ash (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article gives no independent sources at all, and no evidence of notability has been found by searching. (Note: The article was tagged for speedy deletion, the tag was removed by the author, restored by Kittensandrainbows, and then removed with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Kittensandrainbows; Sorry, just raised to AfD before you reverted to PROD [sic] version". I have restored the tag again: I see no reason the article should not still be considered for speedy deletion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider CONTESTED. Once a PROD has been deleted, for whatever reason, it is considered good practice to go to AfD if is there is a case for deletion. Ash (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I am very tempted to speedy delete, as no claims of importance appear at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability, links mostly to facebook/twitter/myspace (the evil trinity of wikipedia notability guidelines), and on top of that, written by the subject himself! Kittensandrainbows (talk) 22:48, 1 March 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 Seicer (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A3: "Article has no meaningful, substantive content." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scruffling

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

appears to be jargon Wikipedia:NOTADICTIONARY applies. External links only to an empty website NtheP (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition to Wikipedia:NOTADICTIONARY, I have searched and found no evidence that this word exists with this meaning. Wikitionary reckons it is a northern British dialect word meaning scuffling or wrestling. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scruffles had the following:

http://www.scrufflesmedia.com.au WIFI Hotspots provider within shopping centres.

so this looks like an attempt at a verb for this organisation (e.g. googling) → AA ^(talk) — 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, going with A3 - but for the purpose, no context and possibly spam (see User:AA's !vote, above) will probably do fine. If all this fails, we're still not a dictionary. If Scruffles wants the Urban Dictionary, he knows where to find it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:20, 1 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abolbashr Javanshir

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

fails WP:BIO. No proper reliable sources, and being the first doctor in a district is not enough notability to otherwise pass. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy. Unsourced (the only refs were internal wiki links, which I've removed, wiki is not a reference for itself). Even the external link goes nowhere. Hairhorn (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any mentions, let alone notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 4 March 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. This is obviously a close call, however, the fact that he appears to be "the leading author -- or at least the most prolific author -- in his field" sways me towards keep. The article needs wikifying and having links added to RS sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Neusner bibliography

AfDs for this article:

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

out of scope Ysangkok (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MOS suggests a separate bibliography article where the "list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable" (see Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography). The list is bloated and disorganized, but these are not reasons for deletion. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:EL: external links are acceptable to pages with large amounts of detail. Jacob Neusner contains an external link to the professor's web site, which lists his books. If page is kept or merged, the list should be trimmed to a handful of most notable items. Cnilep (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS. I think the list needs some organization by topic, but he has in fact written a very great number of books. A complete list is justified for people who are actually famous, not just notable, and the fact that it available elsewhere is irrelevant. One key difference from his web site is that his web site cannot be copied --our article can be. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per --Rrburke and MOS. Obviously this is way too long for the main article on Jacob Neusner and should be put in its own article. He sure has written a lot of books! Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. An external link on the Jacob Neusner article (which is itself a mess) is sufficient. This disorganized list is neither encyclopedic, nor notable, nor helpful, nor worth editors' time to fix. THF (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are other sites (worldcat and Google books come to mind) that are better for listing all books by an author, if a bare list is what one wants. I don't see the encyclopedic purpose of having it here. There are several types of good "X bibliography" articles:
1. In some cases, an author may be sufficiently noteworthy that there are multiple reliable secondary sources that describe and organize their works, and we can have an encyclopedia article that summarizes that research.
2. In other cases, the author has a large number of works that are individually notable and have their own articles, and the list of publications serves the purpose of allowing readers to navigate to those articles.
3. There may be a large number of secondary works about that author that themselves are in need of organization. In this case the bibliography article can serve as an extended "additional reading" section for a main article.

But I don't see any of these rationales as applying in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 28 February 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) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Neusner is probably the leading author -- or at least the most prolific author -- in his field. see [20] and [21]; Probably quite a few of them should indeed have their own articles--I think his translations of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds in particular merit specific articles. What we can do that WorldCat cannot -- or at least does not--is organize the material--not that the present article does it at all well. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Don't see how this is any different from other bibliographies we have on site. As was said earlier in the AFD, its standard practice to split out works when a full list would overwhelm the main article, and that seems the case here. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice towards other bibliography articles per WP:NOT. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rrburke's find in WP:MOS: "Lists of published works should be included for authors". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But said published works should be included on the author's article, not spun out into a standalone article. As has been stated before, Wikipedia is not a directory. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But further on in WP:MOS: "a separate article for a list of that person's works ... is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." And I don't see that WP:NOTDIR applies in this case: it's not a directory or complete exposition of all possible details as it (explicitly) lacks articles, reviews and the like. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As DGG said, the article does not organize it particularly well, but that's not an issue worthy of deletion. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, can supporters cite the specific MoS guideline, rather than waving their hands in the general direction of the entire WP:MOS? Second, I've read the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)/Archive_2#List_of_arguments and it's not entirely clear to me how this became a style guideline, although good arguments are made by both sides there that need not be revisited here -- though I would fall on the side of views that argue that this is WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and needlessly exhaustive for an encyclopedia. I would suggest that a RFC may be in order to generate broader consensus on this issue. My vote, however, remains a delete: if not a single one of this author's works warrants a Wikipedia article, how then is a list of them notable? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Madcoverboy, I did cite a specific MOS guideline in my "keep" vote, but it printed just as "MOS". I cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Basic list style - examples, which says:

If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable.

(And the list of works by Jacob Neusner is definitely long!) Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MOS per Rrburke. It also seems to me that the existence of a substantial dead-tree published bibliography or bibliographic essay on an author, e.g. the one referred to in the Jacob Neusner article, something which exists only for the most notable and prolific in any field, is sufficient for a separate bibliography article, per the GNG. Editions of collected papers and works may also reasonably count here toward David Eppstein's first criterion above: for Neusner see [22] review of a volume here. This is independent of the existence of articles here on any particular work. Asking for multiple bibliographies (especially in the different case of a deceased subject) is too much and a good example why "multiple" shouldn't be a rigid requirement in the GNG. It's like asking for multiple editions of collected works. Unless it's botched, why would anyone redo it? In the cases of such prolific authors, it is inevitable that there will be real value to be added by a bibliographic article, telling us publication histories, saying which work is another one retitled, how X recycled parts of Y, how X appeared in several different publications, etc.John Z (talk) 00:20, 5 March 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. It is unusual to continue an AfD after the nominator withdraws, but as at that point an admin decided not to close it and others have since presented arguments for deletion we should consider all the views. Doubts centre on the lack of references about Ms Serafine rather than by her: the five inline references are: our article on Rutgers where she was a student, which does not mention her; three references to do with her political candidacy, of which one is her own manifesto and one merely mentions her in a list of candidates; and the citations for her book. My assessment of the consensus is that though she has achievements as lawyer, as author, as academic and as politician, they do not individually, or even taken together, add up to notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Serafine

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

Non notable. No Reliable Sources available. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep (see below): Some of the claims made would perhaps be notable if they could be sourced - listed in several "Who's who" directories, has published papers, perhaps even her claimed involvement in the Ferdinand Marcos case. But at the very least, most of the non-notable personal info needs to go -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable for several reasons:

She performed tremendous amounts of research in the field of psychology while working at several research institutions.
Further, she is currently the Republican candidate for Texas State Senate District 14, so she is also a public figure in the Austin area and therefore notable.
Currently, the article is still being worked upon and will soon be polished for a fuller completion. Thus, it should not be deleted but rather updated and edited for completion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmay9 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it is great, and I've changed my opinion to 'keep' to suggest allowing time for that. But a lot of what's currently there really needs to go - it shouldn't be her entire life story, but just an account of the notable parts of her life, with references. So the "resume" of her entire employment history, and a lot of the peacock writing needs to go. I suggest you (or whoever is working on it) read a few other Wikipedia biographies to get a feel for the required encyclopedic style -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jmay9 - Just a sec:

Performing research does not in itself make a person notable -- Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
Running for office does not in itself make you notable -- Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians
A principal test is whether the subject satisfies the General notability guideline

I don't yet see evidence that any of these guidelines have been satisfied, and at present the article reads more like a list of accomplishments or a resume. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD I believe the sources added since this AfD was raised are satisfactory for me. I would wish to withdraw the AfD. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on it. I was not aware that setting up a wikipedia page was that difficult. I assumed it to be much more user friendly for a layman like myself, but I was clearly wrong. Last night, a friend of mine said he had the knowledge of the code to write it out, so he did. We are trying to make things better and correct a lot of the vague terms given as well as the resume information given. Quite literally, I am figuring this out as I go. Thank you for your patience, and we'll try to get it in form ASAP --Jmay9 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the subject not being notable enough, she has received various awards and notices on the national stage. She is, however, very behind on technology and I am thus trying to collect all of the relevant sources as well as I can.--Jmay9 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you somehoew related to this subject, either personally or professionally? Woogee (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Four of the references are to Wikipedia, and therefore classed as not reliable. Another is to the homepage of UTSA with no mention of the subject here. Another establishes that she is on the staff of Divorce Recovery. So? Two more refer to publications of hers which may or may not be notable. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Jmay9. Ideally you should be looking for evidence that she has been written about, preferably on multiple occasions in wide-circulation publications. That is a principal test of notability. But I'm not sure what you mean by "She is... very behind on technology" -- and who are "we"? --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to show notability. Woogee (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I was about to close this as withdrawn, but I took a look at other objections, and I am myself not sure she is notable. What I did was to start rewriting it, but I need to complete it and integrate the two sections. Some basic information is still missing, such as year of birth, and a reference to wherever the material in the article came from. Who's who in whatever is not considered a reliable source here, but it might do for such things as the dates of her degrees. She might be notable as a politician, or as a lawyer, or as an educational researcher. As a politician, we have not generally considered being an unelected candidate to state legislature as notable , (though perhaps we ought to, but we are still arguing over the notability of national level candidates). . If she wins, she will of course be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes & if the article is deleted now, it can be re-entered then, with the appropriate emphasis. I don't think her legal career so far really counts as notable, unless there are major third party references about it. As an educational researcher, it would depend on the citations to her publications; such citations serve the purpose of secondary sources. She only rose to Assistant professor, so there is no presumption of notability under WP:PROF, Looking at WoS, I see 22 papers with good but not spectacular citations for some of them: 51, 43, 25, 18 , 17. Her book is in many libraries, and was reviewed. Whether she is an expert in the psychology of music seems possible, but not certain. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am reminded of a car I had to deal with once - the points were fairish, the plugs were fairish, the mixture was fairish, the rotor arm was fairish; the total result was wouldn't run. All the points made in the article strike me as fairish, but the net total isn't notable. With the timing of her candidature taken into account, I'd suspect a connection and that there is a degree of promotion hoped for. It isn't spammy in style, however. Based on the references I've checked, I'm going for delete without prejudice. Peridon (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has done a lot of things but does not appear to have achieved notability to WP standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 27 February 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) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In connection with Peridon's comments about timing of candidacy and possible promotional element, it is perhaps interesting to note that the article is essentially due to three single purpose accounts. Two of these have no other editing history, and the other one has no other editing history apart from a single edit, which introduced information about a Republican candidacy of another person. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we were to cut this article down to contain only the material for which any sources at all are provided, we would be left with a tiny stub. This is, however, ignoring the fact that even the few sources which are given do not go very far towards establishing notability. The article contains a list of her own publications, but very little in the way of independent sources. In fact there seem to be no sources for independent coverage of her as an academic, and only a few mentions of her political candidacy. It has not been shown that she satisfies the general notability guideline. She does not come anywhere near the requirements of [Wikipedia:Notability (academics)]]. WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states that "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", quite apart from the limited amount of coverage in sources. Some of the arguments for keeping given above seem to miss the point. For example "has published papers": everybody working in academic research has published papers; even postgraduate students publish papers. This is about equivalent to arguing that a musician is notable because he/she "has performed in public". We also have "Her book is in many libraries", but this is not the point: notability requires that someone has written about her. Then we are told "she has received various awards and notices", but we are not told what these awards and notices are, nor given sources for the statement. Much the same applies to various other claims of notability to be found above: none of them really addresses Wikipedia's notability criteria. I think Peridon has got it right: various bits are fairish, but the net total isn't notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 1 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of native x86-64 Windows software

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

The x86-64 architecture is now a de facto standard, and all modern Free and proprietary software packages are inevitably going to support it. This list is therefore unmaintainable; already thousands of software packages are eligible for inclusion here. Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#DIR, WP:SALAT. The list is too large in scope to be useful, maintainable and suitable for an encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly violates WP:NOT#DIR, if only we could delete the other lists which are doing the exact same!!!!! JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can. That's what AfD is for. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a slow, painful, and uphill battle my friend. We must have ~~dozens~~ hundreds of lists just like this one, and that doesn't even include all the "Comparison of X" lists which are made up almost exclusively from original research. Good luck! JBsupreme (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 64-bit Windows 7 becoming common, this list is rather hopeless in scope. Pcap ping 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme's argument. Jeh (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; it's not even very helpful at what it's already doing, since it doesn't clarify which apps are for Server 2003 x64, XP Pro x64, Vista 64, or 7 64... many of them being incompatible with some or all-but-one versions — which I mention just in case it is kept, as this'd be an area vaguely worth expanding on. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:07, 3 March 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. Clear copyvio, speedy deleted. Usually it is enough to just replace the tag, though. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Network

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

Speedy delete This is a copyright infringement of http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Music-Network/245142782954?v=info and http://www.vanessaamorosi.net/?paged=3. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by an editor with no other editing history at all, giving the edit summary "remove notice for speedy deletion- sites were referring charts owned by music network, not vice versa", which does not address the copyright issue at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 1 March 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 Nomination withdrawn. This is a redirect and thus not appropriate for discussion at AFD. No prejudice against nomination at WP:RFD if someone thinks it is an inappropriate redirect. RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National awakening of Macedonians

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

POV title JokerXtreme (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What is POV about the title? National awakening is a common phrase to refer to nationalism. Are you objecting to the term "Macedonian?" I don't understand, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created just today, basically just to host a redirect to the main article. The article is about a concept that a small minority of ethnic Macedonian extreme nationalists pursuits. That is to expand modern Macedonia beyond its current borders and incorporate lands that now are part of its various neighbors. The title "National awakening" has connotations of national liberation and national consciousness. In a few words the creator adds POV by renaming aggressive nationalism to a kind of a innocent patriotism. This is in no way supported by sources and constitutes a POV.--JokerXtreme (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My impartial/totally uninformed bystander eyes note that the article that it links to also refers to "national awakening" several times, including in one source. I think you are basing your conclusion on the "connotations" you suppose the phrase has. Either way, it seems an enormous stretch to call this POV, to me. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: you say "The article is about a concept that a small minority of ethnic Macedonian extreme nationalists pursuits. That is to expand modern Macedonia beyond its current borders and incorporate lands that now are part of its various neighbors." That's not accurate at all, as far as I can tell. The article concerns itself with history dating back to the 19th century. Am I misunderstanding your comment? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I got it mixed up with United Macedonia. But still, I think there are enough reasons to delete this blank redirect page. What are those pages you are talking about? I'm not aware of them. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains that, hehe. And, to tell -you- the truth, I misspoke/misread the other articles that I would be referring to here if I hadn't misspoke/misread ;). So I'll redact that particular comment, although I still stand by my other comments. Will probably hold off on further comment until someone else checks in here -- don't think I have anything else to add. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that national awakening/revival is the (re)emergence of nationalism. It's not the same. One more reason to delete this redirect. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow why this is a reason to delete. The article the redirect is linking to is very plainly about the emergence of nationalism in this people. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still just you and me here, but another point in favor of keeping occurred to me -- the first portion ("History") of the article it's redirecting to is explicitly about a Macedonian national awakening/revival (the phrase is used in the text, and the text covers things like "national consciousness" and "liberation," as you reference above). Redirects are often used when the redirect topic is covered as part of a larger article, which appears to me to be the case here.
I still fail to see any reason to remove this redirect. It's completely harmless and is useful. I still have no idea how it's supposed to be pushing a POV -- at worst, it's pushing a definition of the phrase "national awakening" that you personally disagree with, and that is very far from being grounds for deletion (and I'm not even sure I understand your definition of "national awakening" or that the redirect actually conflicts with it, at this point). We should only delete content when it helps the encyclopedia to delete it, and in this case it seems clear to me that deleting it isn't helping, and is arguably hurting, assuming that others (and this is obviously the case) don't share your view of what "national awakening" means. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I shouldn't have put this in AfD. It's not an article. I should have put it in Redirects for discussion. Anyway, let's see if someone else comments here, there's no meaning to continue this just the two of us. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This isn't an article, it's a Redirect. Take it to RfD if so inclined. Ray^Talk 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close I'm the nominator. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:16, 3 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film)

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

Fails WP:Crystal. One of the sources is a year old, the other is from October 2009, and is IMDB. A more recent source (it's a blacklisted site, but it's the only other reference to this film that I can find, - which is significant in itself, may currently fail WP:N as well) says filming might start "later this year" and that it is rumoured that Knightley and de Caprio may feature. Let's wait till they start filming, shall we. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching produces many brief mentions of the film, but nothing at all that could conceivably be called significant coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seem to me to be a very clear WP:CRYSTAL issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 March 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. Clear consensus to delete, as none of the "keep" !votes actually providing RS information -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Toledo (artist)

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

promotional autobio with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (none of the possibly independent reliable sources verify claims made, multiple sources are just links to pages that do not verify claims, all others are not independent or are not reliable). original research. unsourced blp. prod removed by SPA, saying "Removal of spam from previous contributor". multiple SPAs suggest something else. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were 15 "references" in place when I looked at the article. One was a dead link. Thirteen were links to pages which did not mention the statements to which the "references" were attached: they were not, in fact, references, but simply external links to pages about or YouTube videos of people or things mentioned in the article. In addition almost none of those thirteen "references" mentioned David Toledo, and most were not reliable sources. Removal of these fourteen non-references leaves precisely one reference, namely this, which simply tells us that Toledo was the artist for a 1994 comic. That is the only fact in the whole article for which we have a source of any sort. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More or less per sterling work by JamesBWatson evaluating the references in the article. I've re-evaluated and am coming to the same conclusion. Simply having a ton of content in an article doesn't mean that the content should be an article :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP David Toledo is well known to the artist community in Seattle and Los Angeles. Simple google searches will reveal a number of projects that David Toledo has been involved in for the past 20 years including youth outreach, music, hip hop, traditional and contemporary mediums, cartooning, and video production. Simple detective work reveals a wealth of information on the subject. User:JoshYslas —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

— Joshyslas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 7 edits in total.

KEEP David Toledo Artist There were 15 "references" in place prior to Duffbeerforme's page alteration. Only one of which was a dead link. Thirteen were links to pages which are easily contacted for "references" or that contained the visible work: containing very useful links to pages about or YouTube videos of people or things mentioned in the article. In addition most of those thirteen "references" mentioned David Toledo, and most were reliable sources. Removal of these fourteen non-references leaves precisely one reference was premature, as most contain all information necessary to verfiy authenticity. One example site is this, which clearly tells us that Toledo was the artist for a 1994 comic. We are thankful for this page and the information provided on the Artist David Toledo.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Docoofthemix (talk • contribs)

— Docoofthemix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~KEEP~~ More or less per sterling work evaluating the references in the article. It is easy to conclude that the David Toledo Artist article has more than enough verifiable sources to be kept in the Wiki system. The overwhelming amout of content solidifies the articles place in the Wiki universe. Docoofthemixbomb 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has already !voted earlier. Ty 11:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig looks terribly familiar ;). That Toledo worked on a comic doesn't establish notability. Links to his work doesn't establish notability either, nor does "overwhelming amount of content" in the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ David Toledo is well known to the artist community in Seattle and Los Angeles. Simple google searches will reveal a number of projects that David Toledo has been involved in for the past 20 years including youth outreach, music, hip hop, traditional and contemporary mediums, cartooning, and video production. Simple detective work reveals a wealth of information on the subject. User:JoshYslas —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

User has already !voted earlier. Ty 11:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ David Toledo recently completed the 2010 MAC Fashion House Youth Expose as Director (Jan 2010) and is currently listed as video editor for the 206 Zulu Mighty Four (Feb 2010). Active artist, not hard to find current and past projects. Time better used focusing on easily identifiable fraud than on something so easily verified. --Joshyslas (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)User:JoshYslas —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC). --Joshyslas (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)JoshYslas[reply]

User has already !voted earlier. Ty 11:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an active artist and having active projects does not constitute notability. GNews returns nothing on Mr. Toledo, for all his activity. Nobody is arguing that he doesn't exist, just that his notability hasn't been established. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Docoofthemix has twice removed the AfD notice from the article ([23] and [24]).
In a post on my talk page Joshyslas makes it clear that he or she has a conflict of interest.
For the most part the two "keep" comments by Docoofthemix and the three by Joshyslas make no attempt to address any of the reasons given for deletion, but instead give us vague statements like "Simple detective work reveals a wealth of information" and "The overwhelming amout of content solidifies the articles place in the Wiki universe", without giving us any citations for this "wealth of information" or "overwhelming amout [sic] of content". The only case, in fact, where any attempt is made to answer the reasons given for deletion is the single statement by Docoofthemix that most of the "references" which I removed did mention David Toledo, contrary to what I said. Well, if anyone can show me where any of the following pages mentions either "David" or "Toledo" I shall be very grateful: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. (I have excluded links to MySpace, YouTube, etc from this list, but that still leaves just over half of the links, so if "most" of them mention David Toledo then it should not be difficult to find some amongst these.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. Does not pass WP:BIO, and the sockpuppet show above is just plain pitiful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this post to my talk page Docoofthemix makes a remark referring to my raising the question of Docoofthemix possibly having a conflict of interest. As far as I know I have not done so, but I have suggested that Joshyslas has a COI. I have invited Docoofthemix to remind me where I have suggested COI for Docoofthemix if I have, or to explain whether Docoofthemix and Joshyslas are two accounts belonging to the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient secondary sources not provided to meet WP:N. Ty 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JamesBWatson. Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 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 per G11 by Materialscientist. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of some Idioms

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

Unmanageable list with no obvious criteria for inclusion. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as copyright infringement. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in fact really speedy delete. Firstly, this is, as NickW557 says, an unmanageable list, and really rather pointless. It cites no sources. More important, however, is the fact that at least a substantial part of it, and perhaps all of it, infringes copyright. (While of course the individual quotes are not subject to copyright, verbatim reproduction of a long list of them is.) A very large proportion of the article is a direct copy from Scribd: see this page. Scribd's copyright license is not compatible with use on Wikipedia:

Subject to Your compliance with the terms and conditions set out in these Terms, Scribd hereby grants to You a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, freely revocable license to view, download (including, without limitation download to a portable device), print, and have printed User Content for personal use subject to any express restrictions contained in the license under which such User Content is distributed.

(quoted from http://support.scribd.com/forums/33939/entries/25459.) In addition I have traced other parts of the list to other websites, but I have not found any such unequivocal statement of copyright. However, my understanding is that Wikipedia's policy is to require evidence of copyright permission, and that in the absence of such evidence we do not accept material. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 March 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. No evidence for the notability of the clan (as opposed to individual members of the clan) has been presented, and no RS produced by the opposers. Census is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazni Khel (Clan)

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

There is already an article titled Marwat on Wikipedia where most of these details are available except these vanity and POV entries for which this separate article has been started. This does not qualify and fulfill the criteria of wiki notability as well. Similarly it can not be merged either with that parent article due to these vanity entries. MARWAT 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful addition of information: essentially vanity article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senators of Pakistan are notable. Looks like useful information to me. Shii (tock) 16:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying "Keep: Senators of Pakistan are notable" is like saying "keep the article about black hair, because some notable people have black hair". Notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all of the important information is already included in the parent article except vanity entries.-- MARWAT 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support merging it in. I feel like it's difficult to make a claim of notability about Pakistani society. Shii (tock) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for as its notability is concern the ghazni khel is the leading marwat clan mention in the book a glossary of the tribes and castes of punjab and n.w.f.p. The national politions which i mentioned in the article like saifullah brothers is belong to ghazni khel.The article Marwat is not enough, an article exists at wikipedia with the name of hafiz khel is a clan of gandapur and the aba khel and mahabat khel of Yousafzai tribe is also here at wikipedia, Ghazni khel should be included. As for as vanity is concern i included references for the information, Senetors, MNA's and MPA's are the notable entries. Large amount of information is available about mahabat khan, purdil khan and sherdil khan in the books which i mentioned in the references. I do not included any extra information from myself.User:Mahabat (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, notability is not inherited. What is at issue here is whether the clan is notable, not whether some members of the clan are notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Apparently the person who is pushing the publication of this article on Wikipedia is a single purpose editor who's main agenda is to insert the names of his petty relatives or friends who are absolutely unknown entities. This article is nothing else but pure vanity. Fast Delete recommended.-- MARWAT 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Ghazni Khel is a notable clan of Marwat because of its strong history and their past and present personalities. Ghazni khel is notable beacuse it has eight MNA's, three Ministers and many senetors in the past and three persons of ghazni khel also sitting in different houses. I have many evidences that here at wikipedia dozens of clans are present at wikipedia, like kalpar and Masuri of bugti tribe, Hafiz Khel of Gandapur tribe etc. Then why not Ghazni khel? I am not a single purpose editor, I include references for my article.User:Mahabat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yet again, notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing Admin can see for himself/herself that this user User:Mahabat's only contribution revolves around pushing these POV and vanity entries through this article. He is a sole purpose editor. On a seperate note, the clan is Marwat and Ghazni Khel is one of the hundreds of villages of this clan.-- MARWAT 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes you are right this is my first article but i will write more articles in the future. Mullazai clan of Marwat is also here at wikipedia, Mullazai was also nominated for deletion but after discussion the result was speedy keep. My article is well referenced and contains important information.User:Mahabat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Seperate article is available for Hafiz Khel the leading clan of Gandapur Tribe, Ghazni Khel is also a leading Marwat clan, therefore Ghazni Khel should have seperate article. If the Ghazni Khel is not important sub clan of Marwat then why its name is included in the section disunity and Division of Marwat's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other tribes should have articles is a completely separate issue. It may be that they have more evidence of notability than this one, or it may be that they too are not notable and their articles should be deleted. Either way, whether this article should be deleted or kept depends on whether there is evidence of notability for the subject of this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books I mentioned in referenes are written by well known authors, and seperate sections are provided to Ghazni khel in all four books.--Mahabat 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabat (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dona Remy

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

Notability not established; no independent sourcing; appears to be a vanity article by her biographer. Offenbach (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough notable. -RobertMel (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 March 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. Clear consensus to delete, without prejudice to recreation should notability be established in the future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Burton (Writer, Producer)

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

Contested prod, without improvements to the article. Proposed deletion reason was: "Fails WP:BIO. No indication why he is notable: no independent reliable sources about him: the two sources given are one personal and nearly empty (new dawn), and one not really reliable (IMDb) which indicates that his role in movies has been very limited so far. I couldn't find good sources for him (there are many for Brian Joseph Burton, AKA Danger Mouse, though)." Fram (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion reason was invalid. After careful consideration, we have decided to 'KEEP' article. There is indication that he is in factnotable: sources at IMDB informed us that Burton's credits are being updated and culd take several weeks to post. The reason his website (www.anewdawnentertainment.com) with Telma Hopkins is secured is due to the fact they have a major development deal that is forthcoming. An upcoming article detailing the new venture will be featured in Ebony magazine and the major trade publications--Notrub5003 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC).— Notrub5003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have restored the details of the nomination, which the above editor (who is the creator of the article and probably the subject) saw fit to delete entirely -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious autobiography of an individual who has some projects in the works but isn't notable at the present time. Try again once the projects have panned out or the above-referenced coverage actually occurs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either primary or unreliable, which is leaving aside that they are also trivial. Promises that the subject will be notable in the future do not satisfy notability guidelines. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 March 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) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket 09

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

No such game has been announced or even exists. WWE Socks 07:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article itself says Little is known about Cricket 09, with no formal announcement from EA Sports of the title. which suggests that it fails the crystal ball test.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. All but one of the sources were to gossip in forums, and have now been removed. The one other reference is to this, which does not even begin to be significant coverage. The article itself describes the gossip about this as "speculation". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I peered into my crystal ball and the results were unclear. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the previous sources were blog posts. No coverage from reliable sources. Not even enough info to warrant keeping to record project cancellation. - X201 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 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) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists that use DigiTech pedals

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

This is a list of musicians who use a particular brand of guitar effect. It is not a legitimate topic for an article, and therefore not a legitimate topic for a list. Redirecting doesn't make sense because this isn't a search term that anyone would ever enter. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's also a completely impractical topic for a list. There is, however, an article on the company, which produces (as far as I know) exclusively pedals. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems quite advertorial in purpose. Pcap ping 23:13, 3 March 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. Clearly a synthesis of ideas not directly verified by sources. Could it be true? Sure, but as we all know that is not enough, it must be verified. I would add that the amount of personal animosity in this afd is not acceptable. Limit discussion to the relative merits of the article and not your opinions of one another. If you want to go headhunting, initiate a request for comment on user conduct, but keep it out of content debates. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL WP:OR based on primary sources in violation of WP:SYN. No WP:RS that confirm or even mention that there is an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". IQinn (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename You claim the article has no sources, but it is sourced to [32]. This is a real person; the article should be renamed to whatever his name is. Shii (tock) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion suggestion seems to be purely a Loki's Wager argument. Just because a government hasn't revealed the exact birth name of someone in their custody doesn't make them non-notable for being a captive of that government. Throwing quotes around the words "head" or "neck" or even "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" does not a logical argument make, IQuinn. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is not much logic in your comment "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" is the quoted title nothing more or less. Do you have any secondary source that mention that there is an unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo? Is there any secondary sources that took notice of this and has reported about this. The primary document from Guantanamo needs to be evaluated in the light of other documents and information about Guantanamo captives. That is done by secondary sources. Despite intense searching i could not find any secondary source that took notice of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". No sources that mention this idea. Sure it sounds interesting to have an article about an Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo but if it would be interesting or notable than we would find at least a few secondary sources that would mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo. IQinn (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sourcing is not required to do basic things like mathematics. For example, 2+2=4 does not require sourcing. Therefore, 12-11=1 doesn't either. But as we obviously do not have an article about every Tajik prisoner held captive by the U.S., I could be easily persuaded to merge this into the general article about Tajik captives held in Guantanamo -- but the correct forum for merge discussions in on article talk pages, not AfD. While it is somewhat independently notable that either the government has refused to release his name or the arrested person has refused to give it, this is nothing to waste AfD's time about. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is exactly the right place to discuss if this article should be deleted. By all respect i think that you wasting our time. Sure sourcing is not required to do mathematics. But sourcing is required under our rules of writing Wikipedia articles. And i would like to ask you to base your argumentation on WP policies specially the from me mentioned one.

I assume from your comment that you do not have any secondary source that mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo. Nor do anybody else has seen a valid secondary source.

Sure i would agree we should have this article if we had at least a few secondary sources that would have mention an unknown Tajiki in Guantanamo but we do not have them. From WP:NOR#Sources "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." IQinn (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ merge (see below) -- Nominator's objections seem to boil down to (1) asserting the name is the result of "original research"; and (2) writing as if it were an accepted fact that the existing sources are primary sources. Well, the nominator was certainly free to suggest an alternate name, on the talk page. WRT to whether the existing references are secondary sources or primary sources -- I have addressed the nominator's misconceptions in several other discussions. I am sorry to say it seemed to me they choose to continue to assert that sources like those used here are primary sources without making a meaningful reply. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the DoD were to officially clarify who was being referred to in the references of course I would agree to a merge. An informed commentator could make an educated guess as to who the references referred to. But, our guesses have no place in article space, because we aren't WP:RS. To insert our guess into the article, or to merge this with an article, based on a guess, would be an actual instance "original research". I dispute the article, in its current state, relies on original research. Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another name for something that does not exist? Do you have one? Do you want to call him ISNxxx? Do you have his ISN?

It is a simple lie of user Geo Swan that we had not addressed the topic of "primary source". It had been addressed on his talk page and after the discussion showed that user Geo Swan's arguments were weak. User Geo Swan did not continue the discussion. I have ask user Geo Swan multiple times to continue the discussion but he did not do so. Instead user Geo Swan continues his unproductive behavior by adding comments full of ad hominum arguments to talk pages and Afd's.

Please do familiar yourself with our policies. The fact is that there is only one document for the whole article and this document is prepared by the US military the same US military that runs Guantanamo. The source is too close to the event to call it secondary. In addition these documents are heavily redacted incomplete and parts of the information in these documents could be based on torture. We would violate our very basic rules if we would leave it up to any WP editor to do interpretations of them in any way.

Regardless you call it "secondary" or i call it "primary". The idea of an unknown prisoner is not directly mentioned in the solely "primary" document you have based the article on and we do not have any other source. No newspaper article nor any other source.

The idea itself of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" had been created by the Wikipedia author who wrote the article. He found a document that mention an prisoner from Tajikistan then he took a second document "the list of all Guantanamo prisoners" and found himself unable to assign this document to any of the Tajiki captives and there were several captives from Tajikistan in Guantanamo. The idea of an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo" has only been created by combining these two documents. For sure a classic WP:OR.

I do not think we should have an article on every document a Wikipedia editor can not assign to any of the captives. There are other documants, as we speak about a set of thousands of redacted documents. Maybe we could rename the article to "Guantanamo document of an Tajiki captive that could not be assigned to any of the captives by Wikipedia editors"? No. That would be WP:OR again because we do not have any WP:RS that mention this idea.

Sure i know we can ignore all rules. But am not a fan of it and it further damages the quality of Wikipedia if we do not take our own core policies very serious that were cerated to assure a quality article. I can only repeat it again: From WP:NOR#Sources "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."

Finally, there have been a few Afd's in the past now where editors have disrupted the discussion by filibustering instead of delivering sources and i hope that that will not be another one. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call other contributors liars.
I have addressed the misconception you have put forward before, that OARDEC the agency that convened the 2004 CSR Tribunals and annual review hearings from 2005-2008 could be conflated with JTF-GTMO, the agency tha ran the camp and conducted the interrogations. OARDEC couldn't even get enough cooperation from JTF-GTMO to allow the captives' to keep their allegation memos. JTF-GTMO routinely failed to give OARDEC enough cooperation to search the evidence locker for documents the captives thought would clear them -- like their passports, evidence the captives knew was in Guantanamo because their interrogators routinely brought them to interrogation sessions.
If you object to the name of this article I repeat, why didn't you raise your concern on the article's talk page, and suggest an alternate name, or say you thought the article required an alternate name? How about "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo"? Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS -- Historian Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, quotes from the transcript of Maroof Salehove. The passages he quotes are identical to passages in the unclearly identified transcript. After doing enough reading an intelligent person could make an educated guess as to the identity of the individual in the documents. But only the educated guesses of WP:RS belong in article space. Maroof Salehove was one of my two top guesses. To have jumped from my guess to clearly identify, or even suggest, that this was Salehove's transcript would have been "original research". Based on the recently found reference I am prepared to change from keep to merge to Maroof Salehove. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lie than other people do not need to point out that you lie.

Merge? No, let's delete it. We as an encyclopedia do not base our articles on personal research or guessing.

As i said i personally do not think another name could fix the original research. "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo"? You have any WP:RS that mention there is an "Unclearly identified Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". I do not think so. Once can only come to this conclusion by combining sources. What is classic WP:OR. There is not a single source that speaks about an unclearly identified Tajiki.

"Guantanamo document of an Tajiki captive that could not be assigned to any of the captives by Wikipedia editors" Really the only name i can come up even after your comment. Crap name for a crap article that should be deleted as Wikipedia is not the place for original research. 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than calling other contributors liars, do you think it would be possible that you could comment on whether you agree that historian Andy Worthington, the author of a highly regarded book on Guantanamo captives, and co-director of a film about the Guantanamo captives, is competent to establish that the un-numbered transcript is that of Maroof Salehove?
I thought everyone here agreed that once a WP:RS was located, that established whose transcript this was, we would merge this article into the article on that individual. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly i did point out that i think that one statement that was made here was a lie and i think that is important.
I think i have comment on the Andy Worthington source. He does not mention in the reference that you have provided here that the un-numbered transcript is that of Maroof Salehove. You are interpreting something into this reference that is not there. It might be true and you might be right but we do not do original research. We need a secondary source that directly says look this un-numbered transcript belongs to that captive. This article here is pure original research and the crap should be deleted.
For Maroof Salehove we can use all documents that reliable sources assign to him and we can reference to. The best one is here the The Guantanamo Dockets who have sorted these documents. And somehow one of the documents there assigned to Maroof Salehove looks similar to the one we are speaking about here. I have told you before to base these articles more on third party research like The Guantanamo Dockets than on your personal research. Looking at your userspace one can understand how much research you have done on the "primary" sources but i suggest you would base these set of articles more on secondary and third party sources. What would increase the quality of the article and what would avoid us wasting time to try to prove or disprove your theories. I personally do not think that there is much to merge to Maroof Salehove and i think this article here could just be deleted. IQinn (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possible rename, per given reasons. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please name the reasons for your keep vote? IQinn (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested to hear the arguments for keep from you if there are still some? IQinn (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple users suggest they would prefer I elaborate my reasons for supporting the already-given reasons, I would be happy to do so. (But in the spirit of Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls I am going to refuse to entertain deliberately provocative users as I believe the assumption of good faith has long been exhausted in relations between myself and this user...my apologies if that seems overly passive-aggressive in response) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:22, 9 March 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) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirth Of Genesis: Final Fantasy VII

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

Fails WP:Crystal Nothing on G News and only one web hit when the full title is searched CTJF83 chat 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and I recall Square Enix saying they were done with the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII project. Fixing links is not wrong (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No sources (let alone reliable ones). In fact, many sources have mentioned that there would NOT be a FFVII remake. --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Final Fantasy game that the entire gaming community has somehow missed? Complete bunch of crusty old bollocks. Someone another 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Looks like it really is a fantasy.Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--NO sources online however they are not done with the compilation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.140.133 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 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) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wales v Scotland 14/11/09

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wales v Scotland 14/11/09

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

~~One sporting event~~ This sporting event is in no way notable CTJF83 chat 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one sporting event obviously can be notable (I think our American football editors would be surprised to hear that this year's Superbowl wasn't notable), but this was just a run of the mill match with no particular notability above and beyond any other international football match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sporting event does not indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as peviously stated, nothing noteworthy happened in this game. Standard international match. --Jimbo^[online] 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7. Not only is this match not notable, but the author has made no attempt to assert notability either. – Pee Jay 12:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a normal common-or-garden friendly match. Nothing to see here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's all been said above. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable friendly game. --Carioca (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, none to be found either.--ClubOranje^T 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable friendly match. Clear cut deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of God, delete! Please lets forget all about it... effing Burley... oh, aye, one off friendly matches don't have separate notability. Not unless it was of lasting significance, eg Scotland v England (1872). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Although I thought any friendly game was notable.Jarhed (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a separate article. EuroPride (talk) 13:27, 8 March 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. Consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hauntology (musical genre)

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

Neologism made up by one reviewer. Ridernyc (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax Shii (tock) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hauntology is not commonly considered a musical genre. Therefor hauntology (musical genre) should be deleted and not (!) redirected. gidonb (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ghost Box Records. Almost the whole thing could be comfortably placed in the "Aesthetics" section with little modification. — Gwalla | Talk 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we take unsourced information from here to expand the unsourced information there? Ridernyc (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I could find, the very existence of hauntology as a musical style is rejected by the relevant musical community. This community claims that what is described as hauntology is an effect at most. Between the strong "hoax" and light "unsourced", I think the term "fringe POV" covers hauntology (musical genre) best. In either case, the combination of hauntology with the words musical genre and the contents of this article are misleading and should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It definitely seems to lack notability. I looked at the fifth reference, and IT SOURCES WIKIPEDIA! Ha, what a joke for that to be cited on wikipedia. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources citated actually indicate pretty clearly that it is not a musical genre and that it is a neologism.--SabreBD (talk) 10:28, 8 March 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) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar comedy

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

Original research essay, trying to describe musical comedy that uses a guitar. Ridernyc (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I say weak because I'm not sure what to do with it, as elements should be somewhere, but I say delete because the article does not belong here as it exists. This is more of a list of comedians who use guitars. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and many of the entries appear to be without notability.--SabreBD (talk) 15:37, 4 March 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. That the only source attached to the article is about this genre's demise is telling. Anything that can properly verified can be pulled from the page history and merged. Redirecting as opposed to deleting as it is a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-grime

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

Sub sub sub genres. This one is a "more radio- and commercially-friendly form of grime music". Not unique, no real history or development. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Grime (music). I should note that the Grime article is already templated for a proposed merge of this article. I could easily flip to keep, though, if more reliable sources are found (we already have one). — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I agree with Gwalla. This genre definitely can have an article, but there just isn't enough to justify it at present. It's a matter of how best to organize the information. There was no need for the AfD: This is why we had the ongoing merger procedure. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for yet another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one reliable source indicates that it didnt take off and is a neologism.--SabreBD (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too much of a stub to keep this time, and there is only one source. There is way too little information to keep this article. Maybe sometime in the future it can be a formidable article, but not now. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:55, 8 March 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) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Drinker's Alliance

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Drinker's Alliance

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

Non notable pressure group. The article creator admitted limited coverage when removing the prod but justified that on the basis that it has a few members in its facebook group and the budget is approaching. If it gets more significant coverage it can be recreated then. noq (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another astroturf group. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 5 March 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) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners Solitaire

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

This article gives no references and a search turned up only different games with the same name, [33] and [34]. The Soltrio Solitaire article links to this but the name of the game given there is Four Colors. I searched under this name as well but found nothing relevant. It's difficult to tell if this is a real game but if it is then it seems it only exists in Soltrio. An article could be written on one or both of the other games of the same name, but it would be a complete rewrite. So delete per WP:N. The article was PRODed previously per WP:GAMEGUIDE which seems to be not applicable here, but as a result the article was transwikied to WikiBooks. RDBury (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds vaguely like something that somebody recently came up with. I'm not sure on this one. No references, wow. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 March 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 drum & bass. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drumfunk

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

Sub sub sub genre. This one is "usually much more complex" drum and bass. Not unique, no real development, or history. Ridernyc (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for yet another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to drum & bass. In general, if a subgenre term is in use (as this is), i.e. it is a valid search term, but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I did some reading on the subject and came to the same conclusions as Gwalla. gidonb (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect and also add some sources. There are no sources on this page, and a lot of the artists and labels allegedly involved with drumfunk are red-linked. It doesn't seem notable enough for its own wikipedia article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much point in a merge, given the lack of reliable sources. That is really just moving the problem somewhere else. By all means add material to Drum and Bass based on WP:RP on this topic.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But would you object to a redirect? Usage of the term is easy enough to verify, which IMO demonstrates that it's a valid search term. — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 4 March 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. As no one commented, there is no consensus to delete, so default to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss República Dominicana US

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

Event does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:38, 1 March 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) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dominican Republic US 2009

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

Not to be confused with Miss Dominican Republic, this particular event does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for events or organizations. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability standards for individual events. Additionally, beyond supplying a winner, I do not see how the content in the article can be meaningfully included into the apparent parent article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:34, 2 March 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 Convert to a disambiguation page. The two references on the article are not reliable sources, so the content is basically unsourced. While this may be a valid sub-genre there seems little if anything to say about it that can be properly verified. Given that there are numerous meanings for the term "dream house" this should be a dab page regardless of whether is a stand-alone article on this genre, as this is obviously not the most prominent meaning. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream house

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

This one is a short lived sub sub sub genre. I'd love to say what is unique about it but the article basically describes every other form of modern dance music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "sub sub sub" genre. It's a turning point which, among other genres, fused trance music into house to create progressive house and made it mainstream. And why again do people have tendency deleting GOOD articles on Wikipedia? Shadiac (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion — Take basic sourced facts from the article and paste it into larger articles (such as trance music, for example). It is a contribution no matter what consensus we reach on this one, because those who brought sourced material acted on good faith. Shadiac (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable and redirect to House music. In general, if a subgenre term is in use (i.e. it is a valid search term), but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything salvageable to House music and disambig, rather. I overlooked the other uses of the term (though this is the first I've ever heard of that game show). — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid genre, and extensively inspired more recent electronic music Annihilatenow (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good then you will have no problem providing us with links showing it's characteristics, development, and how it "extensively inspired more recent electronic music". Ridernyc (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect not to Trance but to Dream House (game show). This is a slighly complex issue. First, the key issue here is one of sources. Searches do not seem to turn up even the passing references that such sub-genres tend to generate, so the content should be removed. If someone can find verifiable and reliable sources then they should probably put a section in House or Trance music. However, please note that there is a hat note for Dream House (game show) at the top of the page, so rather than delete the page we should remove the content and make the subject article a redirect to that page, (because dream house is a much more likely search). If there is some sourced material on the sub-genre in a relevent article we should place a hat note on the game show page so that readers can get there easily. If not then it seems logical to leave it at that. Hope that is clear.--SabreBD (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Never heard of "dream house" as a game show. Have you? However, any decent DJ can tell you what a "dream house" is. And we are on Wikipedia, not a place you write articles at that your friend told you to write, obviously. But if more than enough people are talking about it, and there is no article with at least one valid source a/p def from the Ministry of Sound — not having it on Wikipedia is a regression, not a progress. Shadiac (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The genre page has a few sources to it, but it has that dreaded "popular tracks" list which is mostly unsourced. I'll say redirect to wherever suitable. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little-known, short lived music genre. Furthermore, the simple "Dream house" is an inappropriate, misleading name for this subject. There are half a dozen Wikipedia articles about various permutation of "dream house," including Dream House (game show), Dream House (video game), Dream House (HGTV). etc. If this is kept its name should be changed to something like "Dream house (music)" or "Dream house (musical genre)." (This page "Dream house" is viewed an average of 100 times a day, but I bet the vast majority of those views are by people looking for a nonexistent article about people's ideal home.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of those. Thanks. If we get rid of the content, we should make this a disambiguation page.--SabreBD (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful article with some references. Notable topic. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 8 March 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 Hardcore techno. Any content that can actually be verified by a source can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doomcore

AfDs for this article:

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

Another sub sub sub genre. This one is slightly slower then one of the other sub genres. Ridernyc (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge There is very little citation and this seems to be a stretch to deem this "genre" necessary for its own page. Perhaps merging this article appropriately would also be a good option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volbeatfan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the huge amount of nontrivial, independent references in news sources, books and (fewer as relatively new) research literature, I see no case whatsoever for deleting. gidonb (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for yet another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hardcore techno and disambig between that and sludge metal (which is also sometimes called "doomcore", as it fuses doom metal and hardcore punk). In general, if a subgenre term is in use (i.e. it is a valid search term), but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would make sense that sludge metal would also be called doomcore, considering how the genre was assembied in the first place. However, I don't want to sound skeptical, but I have not heard sludge metal be referred to as such before. I would like to see links which call sludge metal "doomcore". Thank you. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - [35] and [36] contain a couple of examples. Also, doom metal mentions it as a synonym. — Gwalla | Talk 07:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should point out that the previous AfD was for an article under this title that described the metal subgenre. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. That is my default vote, but if there are some sources that come along, I would be open-minded to supporting the keep option. By the way, I really don't like the "representative tracks" section; it does not reflect what should be on wikipedia. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Basically agreed. Only major hits or important developments should be included, and they should be inlined as prose, not lists, so their prominence or importance can be expounded upon (IOW, verified). "Representative tracks" list sections, as they stand now, are spam magnets. — Gwalla | Talk 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with a merge of unsourced material is that it dumps that problematic text into another article. If you can find verifiable and reliable sources then I could be convinced of making this a redirect, but if that can be done why are they not in this article? The feeling that an article should exist is not really an argument for keeping it, lack of evidence of notablility is a good arguement for deletion.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frivolous non-existent genre. Not enough notable sources to support this article. Personally I've heard this term quite a bit, but used for sludge metal and even then I think think the term is ridiculous. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 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 house music. Any verifiable content can be merged if appropriate. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disco house

AfDs for this article:

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

Another sub genre of a sub genre ...... This time the sub genre is unique because it use elements from one of the parent genres. Again not notable, not unique, another one of the endless minor and arbitrary variations on dance music. Unsourced for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is obviously overrun by users with poor spelling and hu-uge urge to categorize everything so they can remove it so they can be notable for at least doing something other than fapping on the internets, amirite? Shadiac (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless any proof is brought forward showing that this is a geniune name for a genuine subgenre. The article is entirely unsourced and the waffle doesn't suggest that there is anything especially notable about this particular variety of fusion of genres... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disco house is a fusion genre between disco and house. Checking news sources, I found an abundance of references since 1999 until two hours old, from the world round. Hereunder I bring only a very small selection. The situation in Google books is very much the same: there is very sizable amount of references in important reference books and in music magazines. Given the abundance of sources, I believe that this AfD lacks merit. gidonb (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne G: Hot British DJ brings hot new beats
Project Q Atlanta - Buck Cooke - ‎Feb 18, 2010‎
I wanted to include new productions, some classics mixes as well as classic songs, giving me the chance to move from the funky disco house of “Love ...

deBonton Grab Bag Launch Party
News de stars - ‎2 hours ago‎
Pour cette nuit placée sous le signe de la synthpop, de la new wave et de la disco-house, deBonton, prototype musicalement androgyne, se propose de prolon. ...

RockOnNet
House v 4ki
RockOnNet - ‎Feb 16, 2010‎
Na koncu sta za mešalke stopila Crazy P Soundsystem, ki sta ponudila zelo kvaliteten in plesen disco-house, pri katerem je res bilo težko ostati v mirnem ...

Hot Chip: Linéaire ***
Cyberpresse - ‎Feb 6, 2010‎
... belles mélodies sur des structures rythmiques très disco-house, façon Moroder, une influence musicale dominante sur cet album fait de hauts et de bas. ...

Entrancing & dancing With sold-out shows, packed clubs, even its own ...
$1.95 - Denver Post - NewsBank - Aug 1, 2002
Note: Styles are often mashed together to create a slightly new style (ie: disco + house = disco house) :. Dance: Sometimes referred to as "club," rhythm ...

Head to St. Pete for Fort Rave, THE MOSCOW TIMES | Article from The …
Pay-Per-View - Moscow Times - HighBeam Research - Jul 18, 2003
11:30 p.m. DJ Jeff (Russia, disco house) 1 a.m. DJ Lottie (Britain, techno house) ... 5 a.m. DJ Rudyk (Russia, disco house & progressive) ...

Disco house at escape
Pay-Per-View - South Wales Evening Post - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Feb 11, 2005
Their first tour for 10 years brings them to Escape in Northampton Lane, with special guest DJ Joey Negro. Universally acknowledged as the master of all ...

House Music in the Mix
Go Certify - Sep 27, 2004
The disco house mix of Burning is included-too bad, considering there ... Track 3 is a dubby disco house track. Track 4 throws in a bit more female vocal. ...

All Bar None.(Features) | Article from Liverpool Echo (Liverpool,...
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Dec 27, 2002
They are promising the "best disco house without the trash", ... On Saturdays more funky disco house numbers can be heard, plus another room for chart ...

STYLIN' ON THE SOUTH SHORE
$2.95 - Boston Globe - NewsBank - May 13, 1999
The new Friday DJ is Tim Collins, who spins disco house, Top 40, and some hip-hop. ... He plans to feature '70s and '80s disco, disco house, and Top 40. ...

A Night Out With Vicious Grooves - Mixed by DJ John Course
Resident Advisor - May 24, 2003
A pumping disco house tune featuring a big bassline, synth stabs and some quirky beatbox samples, this tune has gained massive praise from the likes of ...

Out & About: Our Sonia is to sing live.(Features) | Article from...
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Jul 6, 2007
They are promising the "best disco house without the trash", and "compulsory flirting" with Ian Cole sweating it out for a disco house frenzy. ...

The labours of Hercules
The List - Mar 13, 2008
'Classic disco house is what excited me when I was young,' says Butler. 'The album was driven by memories of getting up on various dancefloors. ...

CLUBS: G-whizz it's Great.(Features) | Article from Liverpool Echo ( …
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Aug 16, 2002
With DJ's Ian Cole, Jon Hooper, John Cotton and Sarah Furey, we've had Pop, R'n'B, Funky House, Disco House and Dirty Classics, all ... ...

You can type any two words into Google and get a mountain of hits. All the sources you list show this as just that people combining 2 words. There are no sources showing the development or even describing this as a genre. Ridernyc (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can type "wikipedia" in Google and get into eBay selling Wikipedia usernames. Google is not an argument, neither is it a trust engine to define what is a genre and what is not. Obviously, the article deserves a chance if properly sourced. Shadiac (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I may have been unclear. These are not the results of a regular Google search, but independent news sources and just a handful of the huge amount there is. There are also many (reference) books that refer to the genre. gidonb (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the article with independent, nontrivial sources. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. LOL @ the above, completely TLDR. If this is in fact a valid "genre fusion", whatever that means, then we need to show evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fusion genre, not the other way around. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can find no independent non-trivial coverage of the musical style, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rewrite — actually yeah, now it does seem to provide enough reliable sources to at least define what "disco house" is. Any other information (such as similarity with rock 'n' roll and influences) should be considered original research (Google can't help here) and removed. Shadiac (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to house music. In general, if a subgenre term is in use (i.e. it is a valid search term), but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. I could switch to keep if more extensive sources could be found: the ones supplied in this AfD by Gidonb are passing mentions, which is enough to demonstrate use of the term, but not necessarily enough notability for an article of its own. — Gwalla | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In the article I used a more direct discussion of the style. gidonb (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If this is a likely search term it seems likely that it should go to House Music. Any merging will depend on there being some reliable sources for what is merged. So the original reasearch (if that is what it is) should be dropped.--SabreBD (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems non-notable enough for it. There is the song list again, and there is also a lack of sources. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, there are eight sources. I wouldn't mind a redirect either. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:51, 8 March 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. Clear consensus to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deathgrind

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

another neologism created by mixing the names of two sub genres of music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is fully backed up by reliable sources. There is no single synthesis of sources or original research. Deathgrind is an actual genre with history of about two decades. I'd rather consider deletion of Pornogrind, which is a neologism.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good portion of the sources do not mention death grind at all, the few that do mention it in a passing as a neologism. I can find no source that shows history or development of this as a genre. It's a neologism, plain and simple. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you actually do have the printed sources (the important ones here) available so that you can assume that they do not "show history or development of this as a genre". The printed references no 1, 2 and 3 in this article are sources that talk "about the term" and not only "use the term" as it is said in WP:NEO. So if you "can find no source (...)", then you should get the printed sources from the article. Then you'll find them.

I am not voting to keep this just for the sake of keeping it. Again, this article is backed up by sources. If it gets deleted anyway, then please at least merge it with Death metal#Subgenres please. Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 11:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the majority of the articles sources are links to AMG Bio's that list the bands as grindcore, kind of proves my point. The fact that AMG also has no Deathgrind category further proves the point that this a neologism. If you would like to point to sources that show the development and history of this as a genre and not just passing mentions of the neologism please provide them. It's easy to say something is sourced it's another to actually demonstrate how it is sourced. Ridernyc (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why do you tell me to provide the sources, when I told you in my last comment that the article already provides the sources as follows: the reference section of the Deathgrind article: reference No.1, 2 and 3. Those 3 are what I am pointing at. These sources verify the article. I hope you won't tell my to repeat myself once again. I also hope that you are not serious about assuming that the 2 "facts" you mentioned are supposed to prove your point...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Terrorizer reference states that the term has been around since at least the mid 90s, so it's not clear how WP:NEO would apply. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first three sources are talking about the subgenre specifically; Terrorizer have clearly devoted an entire article to it and have to rank as an extremely reliable source with respects to extreme metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no problem with it being there. It is thickly sourced and has notable coverage. This is not a rarely used term for just a few bands either; the term is in very active use. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thoroughly sourced. A term that's been around since the '90s and is still in active use is not a neologism. AMG's internal categorization system isn't particularly relevant: they're a general-purpose music site and as such only use the broadest categories. They don't even have a category for baroque music, FWIW. — Gwalla | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a well-sourced article about a musical genre. Shouldn't be prodded, definitely not deleted. gidonb (talk) 21:59, 4 March 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. Clear consensus to delete - the option to merge/redirect was considered, but I do not feel that this is appropriate in this case -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark house

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

Another sub genre of a sub genre of a sub genre. This time it's a term some people to describe a slightly slower version of the same music. Once again these dance music genres are endless and none of them are unique from the others. Ridernyc (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is 0 source practically, plus someone noted it being a sub genre of progressive house, which is totally wrong. Suggestion — delete the article, merge 2 phrase info into tech house or tribal house. Shadiac (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally subjective and undefinable term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to house music or to a relevant major subgenre per Shadiac (I should note that "merge and delete" is not a valid act per Wikipedia's license; if there is a merge there must be at most a redirect, in order to preserve attribution). In general, if a subgenre term is in use (i.e. it is a valid search term), but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources there are. Also, the list of song examples only includes fourteen songs, some of which do not even have wikipedia articles representative of the musicians behind them! The list shouldn't even be there in the first place. Bah! Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the lack of evidence for the term means that there is no way of guessing where to redirect even if it is a likely search.--SabreBD (talk) 10:19, 8 March 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. Consensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic Death Mambo

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

This has been a one sentence stub for 5 years. Not really a genre just a neologism someone made up. Ridernyc (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable neologism. It seems it didnt catch on.--SabreBD (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. The (one) band that claims that this is their style probably doesn't meet WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone's added a bunch of extra information, including a few more bands to which it refers. I think it crosses the "keep" line, but only just. 93.96.235.168 (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of red linked and still no sources is far from making any improvements. Ridernyc (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is unsourced and, chances are, it is original research. The term was invented by one of the band members of IBOPA, and does not seem independently notable. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:27, 7 March 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) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chillwave

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

Another sub genre of a a sub genre of a sub genre. This one created by one person 2 years ago. Again these dance sub genres are endless and barley unique from one another. Ridernyc (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally wrong, this is an up to date and a useful description of a popular genre that is more than just a "sub genre of a etc etc" Chillwave despite its annoying name is a very varied genre and also not really a dance genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.95.74 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps move to glo-fi (Pitchfork, to the extent that we care about what they think, seems to be favoring the latter lately). A term in regular use by indie rock publications to refer to Neon Indian, Toro Y Moi, Washed Out, Memory Tapes, and others. Chubbles (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Google News confirms usage in multiple sources. However, there seem to be several other terms in competition for the name of this genre ("glo-fi", "hypnagogic pop"). And most of the mentions I could find that addressed the genre itself were about how short-lived it has been. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of its notability. I can't think of any parent genre it could be easily merged with. I'm on the fence for now. — Gwalla | Talk 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider this article fairly useful and I think that the genre itself is by far popular enough to be included on Wikipedia. Mainstream and non-mainstream magazines have been writing about it and there are heaps of blog posts about it. Personally, I believe there is some chance it will grow even more in popularity (but the opposite is of course possible too). Even if popularity would fade, it still has been a popular music trend worth mentioning. On changing the name of the article to glo-fi: chillwave is the term I have come across the most and it is also the term with the most Google hits. SoQos (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been mentioned somewhat frequently by a lot of underground music news sources (particularly Pitchfork) in the last year. Whether it sticks around is yet to be seen, but it is definitely a legitimate musical movement at the moment. Other terms are competing for the title as well but chillwave appears to be winning out in that department. bob rulz (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much just described a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you see it as inherently negative that the term chillwave could be seen as a neologism. One could also elaborate on that in the article and mention that it could be seen as a neologism, because maybe that is kind of what it is. Especially since there are atleast two competing names for pretty much the same kind of music. SoQos (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEOLOGISM not me manual of style sees it that way. Ridernyc (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that. I am new here. Anyway, in the "Avoid neologism"-article it says support for neologisms must come from reliable sources. Well, combining the three terms chillwave, glo-fi and hypnagogic pop, assuming that they describe pretty much the same thing, I think there is enough support from reliable sources. Two Seattles music journalists, The Wire and The Stranger are already mentioned. One could complement these with Pitchfork reviews and articles that discuss the terms, and other sources too if that has to be done. The neologism is, for me, only the term and not the style of music. The problem, then, is selecting the most appropriate title for the article. SoQos (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining the terms would be WP:OR and WP:SYN both very bad and against policy Ridernyc (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great point if several sources I know of (including one already cited in the article) wouldn't be combining the terms. SoQos (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would support a move to the term "glo-fi" as the terms has had more currency in blogs and music news as the term seems to better capture the genre's sound/vibe (ie. use of low-fi vintage synthesizers). I did find the comment about "bringing back cocaine in a big way" slightly laughable though - acid and psychedelica, some of the genre's supposed inspirations, being arguable almost the antithesis of cocaine in terms of vibe and influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.205.202 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is chillwave to me is not necessarily lo-fi. I mean, Memory Tapes doesn't sound very lo-fi, while Washed Out and Toro Y Moi sound kind of lo-fi I think they pretty much only use a computer. Therefore, considering that these three bands feel kind of central to chillwave/glo-fi/hypnagogic pop, I believe glo-fi is kind of misleading. But maybe this isn't about what I think is most logical and more about what term Pitchfork and other magazines/blogs use. SoQos (talk) 11:47, 6 March 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. Feel free to redirect after the fact, as an editorial, non-admin decision. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient trance

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

Mix two sub, sub sub genres together and you get a article that has been a one sentence stub for 5 years. Not notable, doubt it's really a genre. Doubt development and history can be sourced. Once again this tiny deviations of dance music are endless and not notable or unique. Ridernyc (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree at first glance with most of your nominations, "Ambient trance" really is a subgenre (ambient and trance are not sub sub sub genres, but one genre and one subgenre together). It's the genre started by Brian Eno and perfected by acts like The Orb [37]. There are very few easily available indepth references to the genre, but there are numerous offhand remarks indicating that it is considered a real genre, things like "This CD can be recommended without reservation to all connoisseurs of the ambient trance genre."[38] or "Along with dance-oriented producer William Orbit, Madonna swirls electronica styles like drum-n-bass and ambient trance with samba, Indian raga, Jewish klezmer, disco, psychedelic rock, folk, house music and stuff they haven't even made up names for yet."[39] E;g. on InternetDj, it's a separate chart.[40] While the sources I found are not really sufficient for inclusion here, I do believe that better sources are out there for this. I hope that someone more knowledgeable than me comes along... Fram (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neologism at best. It's also been a one sentence stub for 4 years, something that would not happen if it was actually notable. Ridernyc (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eno is usually credited with coining the term "ambient music", but I've never seen him associated with ambient trance (or trance in general). — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree with all of Rider's recent AfD's on genre:subgenre:subgenre etc. etc., but this one is certainly an issue. I can't find any coverage of this phrase beyond the above-mentioned "offhand remarks." Not listed on AMG, and I've never heard of The Orb described as "ambient trance" -- "ambient house," yes, but not "ambient trance." The last bit there being my own personal, anecdotal experience, of course :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trance music#Trance genres. I'd say merge, but there isn't really much of anything to merge except the list of artists, and it's a little questionable. Artw (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the above mentioned page, or to the ambient music page. Considering the unsourced and one-sentence nature of the page, it really doesn't seem notable enough for wikipedia. Delete may be an option. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for yet another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to trance music, nothing really to merge but a valid search term. Incidentally, Ridernyc may want to disguise his contempt for electronic music a little better; ambient and trance are two of the major genres of electronic music, and calling them "sub-sub-sub genres" is disingenuous at best. That said, there does not seem to be sufficient coverage of this particular fusion as a subject in itself, just passing usage of a term that is more or less self-defining. — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are still sub sub genres in the fact they are even lower then that even if they are major genres they still have been split off other genres. Ridernyc (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to trance music. Ambient trance lacks substance. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My research suggests contributors above are correct to say that Eno developed ambient and not ambient trance. If I could find more references to the term I would suggest deletion of content (because there is nothing notable here) and a redirect, but I can find very few references, which suggests it is an unlikely redirect. I have an open mind if there is evidence is presented that it is a likley search term.--SabreBD (talk) 09:30, 6 March 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) Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tilikum (orca)

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

This subject is too recent and the notability of the subject won't last through next week. This information is already covered at List of captive orcas. This just mirrors the other. Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has killed three people over a period of 20 years, so I can't see how 1991 is too recent. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unpleasant topic, I don't like it, but clearly has been given more than just passing news coverage. Something people have a sincere interest in learning more about. Pardon the crystal ball, but will end up being important in the history of captive orcas. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a one-time incident, covered in reliable sources. Avram (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story of Tilikum will be referenced for a long time in discussions ranging from aquatic captivity to zoos in general. Also, several far less notable/notorious orcas have separate pages also connected to List of captive orcas. Ricegator (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. riffic (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident particularly considering past history of the orca. —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination sounds like this is a new article, whereas it was created on 31 December 2005, then merged into and redirected to Captive orcas on 21 February 2009. Now 're-created' 28 February 2010 and updated. Am I correct? —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does appear to be correct. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the coverage behind the recent death that Tilikum noted, it appears that he is pretty notable now. Unfortunately for him, it's infamy. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's earned his infamy. Huge bastard. I'd stay away for fear of well, what happened. He might not be hostile to people, but he's big enough to accidentally kill people easily.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:SNOW, anyone? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A bit surprised by this - nom appears to have read the recent news, but not the history of this animal (how many serial killer orcas are there?) However, I would like to mention that a ton of vandalism has been done to the page since this nominators prod, which I am working on cleaning up now. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Vandalism has been cleaned up and warnings have been issued. I reverted back to the last good version. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many print articles in reliable sources, (books, journals, and periodicals) had significant coverage of this animal before the most recent killing. That helps to get beyond objections on the grounds of Wikipedia not being a crime blog, and not having articles about creatures known only for one event. I see in books at least [41] for sure and perhaps (no preview). In Google news archive there are a number of stories about Tilikum before the recent killing: [42]. Add in the growing coverage of the latest killing and the case for a separate article seems strong: [43]. Edison (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the article goes back to December 2005. If there was reason for Tilikum to be in Wikipedia in 2005 then there certainly isn't any less reason for inclusion now. Artw (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Reflection -The recentism of this newly created article is evident in List of captive orcas article traffic for January's article traffic. (less than 100 hits per day and there are 22 orcas in the article). Then look at February's. There is an obvious and expected spike in traffic due to the WP:Recentism. It was inevitable. Yet now look at yesterdays traffic for Tilikum_(orca). Around 2000 views. It would seem that List of captive orcas is satisfying the people who are looking for more info. I suggest, rather than create a new article that just mirrors List of captive orcas, why not expand the Tilikum section, which seems to be where most people are going anyway. Besides in a year, this article wont get but 10-20 views a day, because it will be forgotten. Thus the reason why wikipedia has a recentism policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pattern of viewership or hits per day for an article is in no way a deletion criterion nor basis for determining notability, per any guideline or policy I can find. Edison (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I was only using it to juxtapose how irrelevant the new article will become. Very little traffic, compared to the parent article on captive orcas. That, I think, is where most of the traffic will go, and that should be the focus of the efforts.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also because of WP:SIZE Concerns and the fact that Google has not updated The link to Tilikum pages to the stand alone article yet, which will drive traffic to that other page. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move on to other matters. No prejudice to a new AfD in six months if flurry of fame was fleeting, but Timothy Treadwell still gets 1,000 hits a day.--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we'll see this again in six months.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems Notable. Note The recent look of the article may not be Vandalisim as I had a history merge from Tilikum from when it existed last and the AFD Debate can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilikum but was involved with many other less notable articles about other orcas, so it was lost in the mass debate. The WP:Notability speaks for itself as it is the largest orca in captivity and the three incidents it was involved in. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this may be the peak of the interest in coverage, but the creature has received coverage in past decades, is not a generic example, and is likely to remain notable example; if so much later we still find it worthy to have an article on Jumbo, it is hard to assume that Tilikum will not be considered notable in the future as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This whale is not only in the new now due to the recent attack on a trainer but has also been in the news in regards to two other people's death. Highly notable, significant independent coverage, article must stay. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Avenue (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Obviously notable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 March 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 breakbeat. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acid breaks

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

Sub genre, of a sub genre of a sub genre. These variations on dance music are endless. Might be a real genre, certainly not a notable genre. Article has been an unsourced stub for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source and that is not reliable.--SabreBD (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable and redirect to breakbeat. The term is in active use and thus a valid search term, but little seems to have been written about it as a subject distinct from its parent genre. — Gwalla | Talk 21:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for lack of substance. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 4 March 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. Consensus is delete - a redirect would be inappropriate according to the final comments made on this AfD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Time

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

This science fiction concept from the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation really isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Appears to have been deleted before under the title Anti-time, see Deletionpedia. –Grondemar 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable if it only happened one time in fiction. Cool concept however.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it only appears in one episode, and is not the same as other concepts of "anti-time" from Star Trek itself, nor from various theories in science or fringe science. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the episode. I haven't checked but knowing WP all the info of this article is probably there already. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant episode. Artw (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant episode article. I suppose it could be merged if there's any content here which doesn't appear there. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the finale episode. This doesn't require an AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see why a redirect is a good idea. There are several non-Trek usages on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=antitime&limit=500&offset=0 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term "anti-time" is too general to redirect to All Good Things.... It's too general to make a good WP:DAB page either. I'd recommend just letting the search engine handle it. –Grondemar 16:50, 6 March 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. Although this article is in ned of reliable sourcing, the consensus is to keep. Hopefully some of the "keep" proponents will take the opportunity to find reliable sources for this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of emoticons

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

This is an indiscriminate and thoroughly unencyclopedic list that is almost entirely sourced to blatantly unreliable sources. Much of it is apparently based on original research, in addition. If this list is to be kept, it requires immediate overhauling, as the descriptions are written as in a fan-site or chatroom. I don't see such cleanup imminent; this needs to be removed from the project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy keep - This article contains many pieces of encyclopedic information. They are certainly notable for inclusion. There are probably many reliable sources that could be found. Emoticons are everywhere. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's like lots of lists, and ":)" amongst others are definitely clearly notable. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary as well, as an appendix, as it seems like it should also exist there. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some things to consider:
- We also have emoticon. The topic of emoticons is clearly notable, but the question for this particular article is perhaps whether or not an extensive list of emoticons is specifically notable.
- Many basic emoticons are already included at emoticon#Common western examples.
- This seems to have originally been split off from the emoticon article for size reasons, so this list might merit inclusion as a sort of series article.
- This was nominated once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common emoticons for some possibly relevant points. The article was kept there, based on a rather clear consensus, though that was about a year ago.

I don't personally have a clear opinion on this yet, but I do think it would be a shame to have to delete this as it's a useful list. On the one hand it may lack secondary sources, and be a magnet for original research; but on the other hand, with a little effort now and then, it could probably be cleaned up and verified. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:26, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above comment referencing previous deletion discussion. Gatemansgc (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As it has been said, this list is a magnet for OR. The sources should have a minimum of credibility (books, articles written by internet or pop culture experts, and software manuals are fine). But I object to reference 1, 5, 9, and 10. These seem to be compiled lists by amateurs without any information about his credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklipse (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My issue with this article at the last AfD was the lack of sources, and it looks like they've been added. Yahoo and MSN are IMHO very reliable sources for emoticon lists, and quality problems should be fixed, not just deleted. If cleanup results in a very short article, it can be merged or redirected to Emoticon. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Emoticon. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Article informs users of emoticons which the reader may use instantaneously, therefore the source is incredibly useful. The lists may be compiled by amateurs, but that does not signify a need for deletion. The article is still a valuable source of information, and should be given a chance to be edited in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklipse (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.21.159 (talk) [reply]

Strong keep: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are meant to inform people. This article contains useful information about many common emoticons not listed in emoticon#Common western examples, and is therefore very useful to anyone not familiar with certain emoticons. It also gives clear examples of emoticons to show what it's like; in the case of Western emoticons, you can also get enough examples from the main article, but it's hard to convey the style of 2ch emoticons with text alone. You need to actually see the emoticons to know how creatively some people on the Japanese parts of the internet construct their emoticons. VDZ (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, User:Juliancolton didn't link to any policies to assert the need for deletion. According to what Wikipedia policy should this article be deleted? It seems like the only argument for its deletion is "I think it doesn't belong on Wikipedia", as bad sourcing is no reason to get an article deleted as long as it meets the notability criteria. VDZ (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am a secondary student, and I am not always up to date on this kind of stuff like emoticons. I understand the criticisms placed on List of emoticons (They are hard to verify). However, based on my knowledge on facebook and such, these things come all the time in new styles for the same old thing. This naturally makes it very hard to reference it properly. To the best of my own knowledge, many of these are also used by youth, who are not as influential when it comes to reliable sources as most older internet using people, although the older people may not use things like Facebook/IM as much. Additionally, with such quickly changing material where there is considerable amount of flexibility, with smileys being expressible in so many similar ways, maybe accuracy is not the top priority. In my opinion, keep it. Mjosefsson (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: When I saw this at first I agreed with deletion but that impulse was probably because this list looks so messy and much of it seems very repetitive because of how easily new emoticons can be made by slightly modifying existing ones. I found this page because I was looking up the meaning of an unfamiliar emoticon so I definitely feel this is useful. Cleaning it up, removing some of the very similar ones, and making clearer distinctions between the symbols would improve it. The main emoticon page uses little boxes with single emoticons inside each one. That format would make this list look a lot less chaotic. Svenna (talk) 04:37, 8 March 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 Already redirected. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 117

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

Article page contains no verifiable sources regarding a time, location, participants, etc. As it stands, the article does not yet meet the criteria for WP:GNG as there is no coverage of the event. Also, the article is WP:CRYSTAL and should remain under future UFC events until more information is known about the fight. avs5221 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Clearly falls under WP:CRYSTAL. — Rankiri (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, according to Nate's following suggestion. — Rankiri (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad case of crystalballitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per all above. I originally listed this as a speedy deletion, which was denied. Just forgot to relist this as regular deletion. It's going to create a lot of deleted edits for me as I've had to keep this thing virtually blanked due to false info, but yeah...needs deletion. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events event will almost certainly happen, and the article will be re-created so no point deleting, just point @ the list. --Nate ^t/_c 12:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So delete and salt instead. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salting is completely the wrong answer, the article WILL be valid eventually, and salting would mean hassle in creating it, while a simple redirect points people somewhere useful. Salting is for articles that are persistently recreated and should not exist.--Nate ^t/_c 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for UFC are always created by new users and are swiftly deleted because they contain stupid, unsourced information. Just create a temp salting (a semi-protection) if that's possible, so that the pages aren't created by new users. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temp till when? This is almost guaranteed to be wrong, and have to be removed early or expire befor info is available, redirecting solves this as most new users would be satisfied on arriving @ the list or not know how to go back to edit the old page and by the time the did they are much more likely to know not to create it! --Nate ^t/_c 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect? It seems like a reasonable solution. — Rankiri (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of UFC events per Nate. Light weight solution to a light weight problem. jmcw (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say Delete. It's pretty safe to assume that Zuffa will get to at least UFC 150 (and probably many more unless they start calling the events by a different name), so we can redirect all of those OR just create the pages as they are announced as per Speculation policies (i.e. WP:CRYSTAL).(Justinsane15 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
back aroudn 75 someone created up to 100 as redirects to avoid this, it wouldn't take much effort to create up tot 150 and it would save every one time with the creation debate & eventual deletion (along with the ones where they suddenly become valid 1/2 way though the AfD). --Nate ^t/_c 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus agrees with this, then I'd have no problem with performing the redirects. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." I know it seems easier to just make a whole bunch of redirects, but it opens up the rabbit hole if we start doing that. I still say follow WP:CRYSTAL guidelines and delete the article until more is known with certainty. avs5221 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal says nothing about redirects, the aim here is to avoid creation of the pages as articles that will just be deleted. --Nate ^t/_c 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page wasn't a redirect when I listed if on AfD. It's since been changed to a redirect. Here's the diff for reference. And I agree with your aim, that's why I listed it. avs5221 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies then. As there was no response, I presumed it was ok to do this. I did it up to 120, I think. Delete if you want. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:23, 4 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batman television series characters

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

This list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid list in the context of WP:LIST and WP:CLN. Could it be improved? YES! but ask yourself, if all those other articles did nto exist, would the nominator's rationale hold water. No. The fact that the list's contents are derived from other article's content is not a reason for deletion. If the entries are valid and can be sourced, this is a valid list. This list needs improvement, not deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another article just reshuffling the contents of "other media" sections into larger articles. The content should be on the relevant character's page and the characters linked from the specific TV series articles. This is just redundant replication of existing data. (Emperor (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Also worth bearing in mind this AfD where a swathe of similar film-related articles were deleted. (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Also worth bearing in mind: WP:ALLORNOTHING--Mike Cline (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful list of characters appearing across multiple episodes. Artw (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Along the lines of this list - List of Batman television series cast members - which seems to handle it better? - J Greb (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it does so in an out-of-universe manner. Why can't the article currently up for AfD be redirected there? It links through to actor and character in a more original and useful way (there is no chunk of text dropped in from another article). (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The need is improvement not deletion.--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:47, 8 March 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. Consensus leans towards keeping, in that it has enough notability on it's own, and that redirecting to Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy might ignore the other uses of the phrase. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eichmanns

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

Not notable. Obviously this phrase attracted a lot of attention in relation to Ward Churchill. It was used by a few people before that in various contexts, but I can't find any sources discussing the phrase itself. Anything related to Churchill's use of it can be covered in Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy; in fact this article doesn't really contain any information that that article doesn't. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Sounds like a valid search term. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Per. THF (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect wish editor would have contacted me first, and I would have happily redirected it. Okip 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Even though this phrase has a history going back way past Ward Churchill, several of us who looked for a good source on the history of the phrase did not find one. We can recreate the article if such a source appears. Zero^talk 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Ward Churchill, Talk:Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy and Talk:John Zerzan page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. Okip 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep ~~Redirect per everyone else~~. The article needs expansion and sourcing to establish its notability outside the context of the Roosting Chickens essay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect~~. Looking more closely, I need to change my opinion. The broadest notability is indeed Churchill's use, but there's enough in Zerzan's use and other uses that redirecting to any one bio misses the wider use of the phrase. It might be possible for a reader to jump from the 9/11 essay, to Zerzan, to somewhere else, to piece together the information that is now in one place, but they should not have to. The term gained its broadest notability in Churchill's essay. However, there is a bit of relevant information about Zerzan's use that is worth retaining. Perhaps we can expand a footnote of the like in the "essay controversy" article to include this info. LotLE×talk 09:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons. First, the topic was covered before 2001 [44], in particular this 1986 book [45] which definitively is "discussing the phrase itself" refuting that part of the AfD rationale, but also in Schizophrenic Germany‎ - Page 52 (1961) [46] etc. The 2001 WTC attack was indeed terrible, but later coverage of facets of this event it should not be allowed monopolize this term. Second, I'm very much opposed to redirecting a likely search term to a, if not downright chaotic then at least sprawling, "controversy" article, presently 33k long, and full of confusing quotes, TLTR. The article up for AfD provides a reasonable explanation, suitable for the average reader, looking for quick information, therefore it fulfills a meaningfull encyclopedic role. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That 1986 book isn't discussing the phrase itself, it just uses it once. What I mean is a source that's actually focused on the phrase itself, describing its history, usage, etc.--like a William Safire column or an entry in an encyclopedia of quotations. The controversy article clearly explains in the first paragraph what the phrase means and where it was most famously used, there's nothing confusing about it. This phrase is only "notable" because of Churchill, nobody would have created this article otherwise, so it's totally appropriate for that to be the focus of Wikipedia's coverage.Prezbo (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG is the guideline here. Without Churchill's use of the phrase and the controversy that it caused, most people would never have come across it. It is difficult to justify a standalone article based on this phrase alone, although its context should be fully explained.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have several articles discussing the phrase and its meaning. I can't really find anything new and academically original about the event it has brought up, but that doesn't mean that the subject is not encyclopedic. I don't understand why some people insist on who said first and who thought deeper. Is it really a question of Churchill getting other peoples' credits? The fact is that the sentence became a catch phrase in popular culture and there are tons of sources discussing it. The article is about the phrase.

I think this is a question of deciding what is the scope of the encyclopedia. The limits are not necessarily very clear. But we do have tons of articles on lighter catch-phrases (¿Por qué no te callas?) and and a category on "neologisms". This subject seems to fit their. Maziotis (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS remains a very strong argument. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Plausible search term, but this turn of phrase is neither common nor important enough for its own article. (Is this band name taken?) / edg ☺ ☭ 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having known of this common and important (and now notable) phrase long before Churchill used it, I disagree with redirecting it to whomever has most recently given it publicity. If I am looking for information on this pop-culture phrase used by Anne Sexton in her poems; by Alf Lüedkte in his books on German history; or by John Zerzan in his theories, I'd rather not be escorted to an article about one man's opinions on the causes of the 9/11 attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comment above. The catch-phrase is an event in itself, with enough speculation to have a full article about it. Since we can cover catch phrases as an encyclopedia, I can't see a single argument to deny this one. To the people who argue that this is "just not good enough" I have say that you have to provide a more clear argument. Maziotis (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per LotLE. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many people have voted "keep" on the grounds that the phrase is notable and it would be good to have an article on it. I agree with that sentiment. The problem is we have no sources. The fact that it has been used here and there in places we can find is not good enough, since bringing those examples together and making an article out of them would be a perfect example of Original Research. Zero^talk 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have sources in the article, which calls for a tag on the lack of sources. But the people who are arguing for "keep" do base their position on the existence of notable sources. Maziotis (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None are given above. Apart from some discussion of Ward Churchill, mostly vitriolic, I have only seen sources using the phrase, not any about the phrase. Zero^talk 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this entry is better suited for Wikiquote. Or Wiktionary. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wkiquote, certainly. Although it wouldn't solve the issue raised here for inclusion. Wiktionary, no. It is not an actual word. As for the need of having sources discussing the phrase itself, I don't think you could be further from the truth. ¿Por qué no te callas? has sources concerning an event, where the phrase is a reference. Ward Churchill wrote an essay with some hundred words and somehow that expression, little eichmanns, is the center of attention through out the media. Maziotis (talk) 16:35, 2 March 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N. K. Naik

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

N. K. Naik fails to meet all the conditions set in WP:PROF from Engineering academia, he is not there yet, his books are not widley held, no outstanding achievements or awards in the field kaeiou (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of gscholar hits (i see about 200 journal articles). h-index is 17. And a fellow of National Academy of Sciences means, he meets #3 for WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of GS cites noted above and Fellowship. Did the nominator think that they were unimportant or did he just not notice them? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Ok citation counts in Google scholar, but membership in two national academies is what convinces me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons furnished above. Notable - sans doubt. Arjun ⁰²⁴ 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my fault, I will update his page, you may close this afd to keep - afd nominator. Thx. --kaeiou (talk) 12:28, 1 March 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 What nyttend said Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Fone

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

Blatently adverty article about a "cinematographer" (although the article's defintion of cinematographer is someone who "documents....weddings") who I can find no sufficient notability for. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per WP:CSD#G11— blatant advertising. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 1 March 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 Punk rock. Since punk rock is a featured article, it's probably better to redirect the article than to merge it as of now. Content from Toronto punk rock can be merged as seen fit by editors familiar with the genre. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto punk rock

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

Unnecessary content fork. Claims to have been started by a red link band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should just be merged with punk rock Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This subset doesn't seem notable enough for anyone to type it in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this article is pretty weak and granular, although some (not all) of the bands listed are legitimately notable. However, an article on Canadian punk rock would be much more expandable, much more notable and much more appropriate as a redirect target for this title. Delete as written; I'll start the latter topic in sandbox space. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into Punk rock --> Second wave --> North America. gidonb (talk) 17:11, 4 March 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 Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stewarts Creek Middle

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

Unremarkable middle school from unknown district Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Smyrna, Tennessee. There's no education section, but unless the district is created, that's probably the best spot for it. tedder (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 March 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 Notability asserted and supported - a picture would be nice. Mike Cline (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

930 Fifth Avenue

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

Non-notable New York City apartment building whose sole claim to fame is one famous tenant. Does not meet WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak delete Wikipedia is not a directory. ~~Appears to fail notability.~~ Sources have been added which improved the article, but so far no one has been able to determine if the coverage is significant in the books shown online only in snippet form. Havin g a well known architect and well known residents does not absolutely establish notability, but says more for a building than one which has neither. Edison (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No-brainer. No notability asserted whatsoever. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:03, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Being designed by an iconic architect is an assertion of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People please do a little research before voting so quickly. This was almost a snow-delete. Just being designed by Emery Roth alone makes it a notable address (just added "new" fact to article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs)
With the improvements I'm going to confidently add keep per WP:GNG. The sheer quantity of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources does satisfy GNG; "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."--Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm aware, being designed by a notable person doesn't make a building notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:29, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's a subjective opinion. I think in this case it makes it incredibly notable. Even the heading of WP:N stipulates we use common sense.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from not satisfying any of WP:GNG, if basically the only fact to convey is its designer, that information is adequately presented in the designer's article. A separate article for every one of that designer's buildings isn't necessary just to convey the fact that he designed them. It makes no practical sense. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:47, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Article appears to be well-sourced, I don't see any harm in letting it stick around.--Milowent (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The building is neither a national nor a municipal landmark. There are no notable architectural achievements connected to its design or construction. The architect was extremely prolific in New York City and this building has never been identified as one of his masterworks. And famous tenants do not bring about notablility, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see two routine notes from the local paper from the years it was under construction in 1939 and 1940, and sevral notes about famous residents, but the notability of the residents is not necessarily inherited by the building. Do architecture books have something significant to say about the building as an example of a new style or new construction methods? Nice job of searching for and adding refs, but I do not quite see that they satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mansions in the clouds: the skyscraper palazzi of Emery Roth appears to have a more in-depth description of the building, but the preview is limited so unless I have the book, I can't say for sure. This book also has some content on it, but it's hidden again due to the http link only being a preview. --Oakshade (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both books, it appears that references to this particular are fleeting, at best. Furthermore, the article is now being embellished with frilly language that is giving the building an artificial sense of importance. Again, it does not hold landmark status nor is it recognized for any breakthrough in design. Warrah (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frilly language? Feel free to propose edits, of course, but information I just added to the article includes a mention in a 1978 retrospective of Roth's work in the Times written by an architectural critic. I also determined that the building is within the Upper East Side Historic District. I am not try to establish that the building is the Parthenon, just that, in the aggregate, the building has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Milowent (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warrah, I was answering Edison's question with no bias whatsoever. We know you as AfD nominator wants this article deleted, but please let editors answer others questions without throwing in bias responses.--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Upper East Side Historic District is a neighborhood that covers a large stretch of Manhattan, including several parking lots, Starbucks outlets and pizza parlors. The coverage that is being presented is not significant. In most cases, it is merely mentioned in passing. Warrah (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its ok if we don't agree, as we are unlikely to convince each other it seems. For the record, I would submit that the district is actually a very small percentage of Manhattan.[47], and Starbucks and pizza parlors do not need to seek approval to change their facade as the actual buildings which create the historic character of the district must do. Admittedly, this individual building is not individually designated as far as I know.[48]--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been significantly improved since its nomination. While ripe for nomination, I think it is now worth keeping.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvements to the article, plus the fact that it was designed by Emery Roth and had several notable residents, makes this article notable enough to be kept. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already voted to delete, prior to the recent expansion; my feeling on the article is unchanged though since then. Famous residents and a famous architect don't make the building notable (WP:INHERIT, as has been mentioned above), and nearly every building in NYC has probably had passing mention in some publication. I'm not seeing this building significantly stand out among them. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:46, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe a merge to Roth's article. None of the sources constitute significant coverage, as required by WP:N, and the building does not inherit the notability of its architect, nor that of its residents. Powers ^T 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't require a large amount of significant coverage to come from a single source. In this case, there is a significant amount of coverage that comes from a combination of many sources.--Oakshade (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the amount that needs to be significant, it's the depth, which is sorely lacking. Powers ^T 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying. The significant depth has been demonstrated to come from a combination of sources.--Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's run down what we have: Famous residents, a famous architect, what used to be at the lot, and a couple of quotes about the decor; this all I'm seeing so far, and it doesn't constitute in-depth coverage, according to my experience with Wikipedia's standards. Again, I think the same probably exists for the majority of buildings in NYC, and it would be a mistake, and useless, to have separate articles on them all. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:23, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The slippery slope argument doesn't work with me. I don't think there is the same coverage on a majority of buildings in NYC. And remember that Wikipedia is not paper. If hundreds of buildings in NYC pass WP:N, then we can have hundreds of articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, "Article appears to be well-sourced, I don't see any harm in letting it stick around." Sourced and verified articles are odd candidates for deletion (at least once they are improved.) In my experience with wikipedia's standards, we have about 1 million articles worse off than this one. Unfortunately, ~~all~~ a number the article creations of the creator of this article now appear to be up for deletion all at once. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 East 57th Street.--Milowent (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All? No, he's created many more articles than that. I just nominated a few that I feel have similar issues. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:55, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Corrected.--Milowent (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree. Even in aggregate, none of the sources constitute significant coverage, as far as I can tell. Powers ^T 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepManhattan apartment buildings, even the famous ones, tend to be known by their numbers, not by the names, which they all have but which are often forgotten, even by the residents. I believe that the names of the notable residents are as central to these articles as the names of the residents are to articles about small towns. People like Roakcfeller and Nixon lived at 810 Fifth because it was a prestige building, and it was a prestige building because people like Rockefeller and Nixon lived there. It is also a fact that these buildings function like private clubs. You don't simply purchase an apartment in any of these great buildings. The members elect a board of directors. When you find an apartment to buy, you apply to the Board of Directors for approval. The application process entails multiple letters of reference and a personal interview, in addition to proving that you have liquid assets more or less equal to the value of the apartment not including the money you are paying to purchase the apartment. Like a private club, the Board can veto you without giving a reason. All of these buildings, like private clubs, decide what kind of people they wish to associate with. Some admit celebrities, many do not, they dislike running gauntlets of press on their way in or out. In a very real sense, these buildings could be evaluated for notability as a series of private clubs notable for their membership, which includes many of the world's wealthiest people. Some are notable for their architecture, others are not, except in the sense that streets park Avenue, Central park West, West End Avenue, and Fifth Avenue are admired by students of architecture precisely they feature block after block of handsome, limestone buildings, of more or less the same height and all with similar street walls creating an wonderful impact on the eye. Almost every one of these buildings is a notable piece of architecture that would be among the most admired buildings in the city if it were plunked down in the middle of Cleveland, Houston or Miami. The great buildings of New York are not less notable because New York has so many of them. AMuseo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Private clubs don't inherit the notability of their members, either. They must be written about in third-party sources first, just like buildings. And I don't see significant coverage of this building. Powers ^T 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- there is no getting around the fact that the building does not have landmark status, nor is it celebrated for its architecture or construction. Nor is it special for being in New York City. A handful of famous tenants does not confer notability on this apartment house, and the majority of the coverage sourced to the article only mentions the building in the briefest manner. There is a valiant effort to keep the article, but ultimately the arguments for keeping it do not add up.Warrah (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient references, for those who go primarily by that. In terms of a more general meaning of notability, most of the major luxury apartment building in cities such as NYC will prove to be notable. A major work by a major architect is notable; a building where many famous people have lived is notable; and building for which there are multiple literary mentions is notable. This is all 3. A building so important that the various stages of its construction are matter for newspaper articles is certainly notable . That all landmarked buildings are notable doesn't mean that no other buildings are. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A building where many famous people have lived is not necessarily notable. Powers ^T 13:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Powers, is it possible that in the case of buildings, the number of notable people living there does confer notability? The reason I suggest this is that newspapers and books are published every day with articles about famous people living in this or that building. when A-rod moved into 15 Central Park West, it was a front page story with a long discussion about the building and how many other famous people live there. Tour groups circle New York and Hollywood pointing out who lived where. I really think that the amount of press devoted to describing buildings where famous people have lived is preceisly the kind of coverage in secondary sources that establishes notability.AMuseo (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is those stories that confer notability, not the mere fact of celebrities living there. We can't assume notability just because famous people are living in a particular building, not unless such sources are so common that it would be literally surprising to find that a particular building doesn't have such sources. Powers ^T 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the references and you will see a highly subjective consideration of WP:RS. Kate Kelly’s New York Observer real estate column says, “No. 930 is not considered one of the preferred Upper East Side co-ops” – hardly an endorsement of notability – and the article is only about the sale of Woody Allen’s co-op apartment, not the building itself. The Real Deal article is about the architect and not the building. The New York Times article on Harold Uris mentions the building in passing in only one sentence. The older New York Times articles are not accessible to non-subscribers and none of the books are easily available here to confirm that there is any in-depth coverage of this very specific location; judging by the titles alone, it is clear that the building is not the primary focus of any of this coverage. I am sorry, but this fails WP:GNG and it violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that New York Observer article, negative coverage is still coverage. The Real Deal article point is a red herring as that article supports that Emery Roth was an iconic architect (Warrah, you kept on trying to delete the word "iconic" [49] so that's why that source was provided). It's impossible for an article to "violate" WP:NOTINHERITED as WP:AADD is a self-contradicting essay which can be useful to help those with a point of view, but it's not a policy nor even a guideline. --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that the word "iconic" was too subjective, which is why I took it out; I later put in "prolific," but that got removed. And the Observer article isn't even about the building; it is only about the sale of Woody Allen's co-op apartment. Warrah (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no question the article had some issues when nominated and judging notability for a building can be hard but the fact is that construction materials are not notable. Bldgs gain their notability by virtue of people involved with their construction and design as well as people who live(d) there. Would The Dakota be notable if not for its residents? This building, while not the most notable in the world - which is not a requirement for notability - has certainly obtained some coverage sufficient enough to pass GNG in my mind StarM 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakota is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and is a U.S. National Landmark. This building is not cited on either listing. Furthermore, The Dakota's placement on both lists has nothing to do with its celebrity tenants -- it actually has a historic significance as "one of the earliest large-scale apartment houses" [50]. And, again, the coverage cited in the article either gives only fleeting reference to the building or doesn't even mention the building. Warrah (talk) 11:35, 5 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shikhman

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

This page reads like an advert, which is not surprising given that it is almost copied verbatim from this. Note: This is my first ever nomination so if I have made an error please let me know on my talkpage AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:PROF, and aside from a couple of reworded sentences, is copied directly from a website, as mentioned by the nominator. Could probably be speedied as WP:CSD#G12. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright violation, doesn't show notability. Minimal coverage in news (coverage in local newspaper of a clinic opening). Unsurprisingly, there are no significant hits in Russian either. Avram (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd G12 it, but since the copy of the page links to Wikipedia, it's ambiguous which one was copied. I'm listing it at WP:CP in case it's kept. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 3 March 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 Blatantly WP:POINTy nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Haiti earthquake

Now especially amid the news of the Chilean earthquake, and given the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source, it is time for the article to go. Content may be useful; merging to Earthquake, Haiti be best idea. --SydneyHoonDriver (talk) 00:23, 1 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Home

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

Non-notable song, no content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No argument for notability made in the article, no sources of any sort provided, and good faith Google searches don't turn up any indication of notability. I'd add that there are some notability problems with the article on the song's performer, Stripey Zebras, as well. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one's a no-brainer. Also note that the parent album doesn't have an article. The band article needs help too; I have added the appropriate edit tag over there. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 3 March 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. Consensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UR (Alanis Morissette song)

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

Non-notable song. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find only trivial mentions for this song within reviews for the album; no significant coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NSONGS, and the (Alanis Morissette song) in the title makes it an unlikely search term. Gongshow ^Talk 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song by its lonesome is NN. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 2 March 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.