Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was no consensus. We owe deletion candidates a "speedy trial", so a third relist is really too much. Clearly no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

La the Darkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

DELETE. There is no notability by relation, this is just another dime-a-dozen act. JBsupreme (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's a keep. 2007 XXL interview 2006 AllHipHop interview , brief Living Notoriously review and badabing, WP:MUSIC is met. Extra extra read all about it: report of claims his debut went gold internationally described as "major player" in Atlanta , tiny allmusic bio plus numerous passing mentions of his (also numerous) contributions to high-profile releases, such as Pitchfork's rather unkind "almost comically bad" re "Overboard" and "extraneous dross" re Luda's The Preview. I think there was quite a bit more written on him circa '98 when wu tang affiliates were getting serious notice, but before hip hop had a strong online presence. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the only significant coverage identified either by other editors or by my search is in highly specialized sources that stretch the definition of reliable. Don't know where consensus is these days on very specific genre-related sources (so I'm not opining here), but if I ran the circus, these types of sources would be consider reliable for purposes of verifiability, but not notability. _matic 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment" Mentioned in Billboard on Dec. 15, 2001 and Aug. 8, 1998. The 1998 article mentions upcoming, unnamed album release featuring members of Wu-Tang Clan, the 2001 that he makes a guest appearance on a V-Ice album. The 2001 article spells his name La tha Darkman. Also in Billboard, his album "Heist of the Century" ranked #9 in the Middle Atlantic region on their "Regional Roundup: Rotating top 10 lists of best-selling titles by new and developing artists" on Dec. 26, 1998. He's mentioned once in an Oct. 26, 2006 Boston Globe review of Method Man's "4:21 ... The Day After" album, on which he makes a guest appearance on one track. More reliable sources, but all passing mentions. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Ummm I didn't cite these sources at random, but searched them specifically as sound: AllHipHop's stories have been cited by the NYT, Newsweek, ABC news, Chicago Tribune, USAToday, Rolling Stone and so on and so on (including the Irish Times, the paper of record in my own country), and XXL is one of the premium hip hop print publications in the world, and perhaps the one with the strongest online presence. hiphopdx, though I did not rely on it above, use some established journalists and do some impressive original reporting and independent reviews. None of these outlets cover just anybody; they are excellent indications of notability for hip hop artists. It would be ludicrous to bar specialist media when considering notability in any subject. (The allmusic bio also cannot be ignored as an indication of notability, tiny though it is.) 89.100.145.57 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I suggested was likely (as 89.100.45.87 above), Heist of the Century was reviewed in The Source #111 (December 1998), and the probability of other offline coverage is high. Third-party coverage is now piling up, and all that is set against it is bongo's somewhat plucked out of the air assertion that somehow hip hop publications are "specialized" and therefore "stretch the definition of reliable". I am curious as to why when WP:MUSIC has been so easily met, the AfD is stretching into a third week. 86.44.16.93 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Some evidence of notability and coverage. Including doesn't make the encyclopedia worse and it seems best to preserve it pending future events that will either establish notability more firmly or demonstrate that the rapper isn't worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 State University of New York at Potsdam. The article is written in inappropriate tone and the name is not backed by sources. However, the topic is somehow relevant so the best option here is a merge to the parent article. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

This is pure synthesis and original research. No sources calling it the "Potsdam Miracle" found at Google news, books, nor through searches on Lexis or Westlaw. The two Google scholar sources doesn't seem like enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect – seems like a natural fit for a merge of relevant information and redirect to State University of New York at Potsdam as they are the main subject of the article. Thanks. ShoesssS 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with nomGr8launch (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete purely promotional, nothing appropriate for merging or even redirect. So promotional that I would consider it eligible for speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - even though it is referred to in : American Mathematical Monthly, 2003,and MD Shepherd - PRIMUS, 2005. Thanks ShoesssS 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on SUNY Potsdam; no sign this warrants an independent article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to State University of New York at Potsdam (but needs editing down too). Doesn't merit a separate article, nor is this an appropriate title – I expected it to be about a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature in the capital city of the German federal state of Brandenburg. Qwfp (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to State University of New York at Potsdam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep CLEARLY noteable. On a quick literary search, The Potsdam model is is the subject of published works, and also turns up multiple hits as a reference source. Lots of unique google hits. Don't under stand the G11 suggestion - this is not a product it is an event that occurred. all this needs is some cleanup to wikify. RayBarker (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know if the name is the most appropriate (somewhat POV naming), but it's a mistake to say delete just because that exact phrase doesn't appear in many articles. The topic of why Potsdam has been successful (according to certain metrics) in mathematics when previously it was not is a subject of great interest and debate in math education. It surely deserves its own article, and I think it'd be a trifle odd to have a large section on it in the SUNY Potsdam article. For example, any debate about the merits of the Potsdam model would definitely not be appropriate there. But obviously this article could use expansion and cleanup (and possibly moving to a different name). --C S (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep.` - notable subject, verifiable. Mukadderat (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable baseball player/manager. Never made it past the low level minor leagues in either job. No sources that aren't notes in a list of people that got jobs or blurbs. Wizardman 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTE, WP:ATHLETE. If he has a article, then I'll create one about my junior football coach :D. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to this point in the individual's career to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Not fullfilling Wiki notability standards and created sourcing personal blogs and postings by an ISP suspected on talk page to be the subject of the article himself. Whitespider23 (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Muhammad Ali Hasan is a political commentator in America and a potential candidate for statewide office in Colorado. If Knowledge (XXG) serves as a reference site, it would seem his inclusion is necessary. Personal insight about his 2008 political race seems as fair reference. I think the page is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.54 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an elected official, even locally. Not a nationally known businessman or filmmaker. This appears to be nothing but a vanity article created mainly by a series of sock puppets, whose only wikipedia contribution is editing this one article. 75.142.53.163 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless substantial coverage in reliable independent sources can be found. The article being promotional and sourced to the subject's own biography isn't helpful either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nn Mukadderat (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see a standard of notability that he passes. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - has lots of references. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Appears to consist entirely of original research. Based almost completely on one 1999 CNN article which doesn't even mention a "Kennedy Curse". Of the other 3 sources used in the article, two are not reliable and also don't mention a "Kennedy Curse". The third (from Newsweek) is used as a citation for events that occurred 15 years after the source was written. Jayjg 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Sorry, nom, but a Google book search produces results immediately, the first one of which is The Kennedy Curse, by Edward Klein, published by Macmillan. Headline in The Guardian today: "History of the Kennedy curse". Case closed, I believe. The article needs editing: that timeline/list needs to go, to be replaced by a prose section based on the many, many reliable sources that can be found easily through Google already. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It may be that reliable sources on the topic of the "Kennedy Curse" exist. However, Knowledge (XXG)'s "Kennedy Curse" article has existed for over 5 years, and even underwent an AfD almost 2 years ago, yet still has not been able to accrue even one reliable source that actually mentions the "Kennedy Curse". I am not optimistic, at this point, that it ever will. Jayjg 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kennedy Family the term was used in the book title creatively, and i doubt it advocates that there is a "curse" on the family. this article is just a list of tragedies befallen the kennedy family. a large, prominent family. do the math. i doubt if anyone of note will ever mention this idea seriously. if we dont have references to the use of the term "curse" beyond casual or nonserious use, after all these years, then this article isnt really about its subject. since the tragedies are all listed in other articles, no info would be lost. the term is mentioned in the article on kennedys, so redirect thereMercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect; it's a tiny bit better, as of today, or at least last moment I looked, than it was when I AfD'd it in '07. But it's still a matter of finding, for every entry, a reliable source that says this is part of a "Kennedy Curse". Really, one paragraph in Kennedy Family should cover the whole thing. Oh my, it already does . --jpgordon 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is certainly notable. The information is verifiable. Simply because the article is currently a mess is not a reason to delete. Obviously, as books have been written on the subject, the potential for a full article exists. — MusicMaker5376 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename Most people do not take seriously the beliefs that the moon landings were a hoax or that the American government planned 9/11 either but the beliefs do exist. As does the belief in this "curse". Ted Kennedy made reference to it in his Chappaquiddick speech. I suggest the title should be something like "Kennedy curse theory". Someone just moved it to "Kennedy tragedies" but who is to say which of the examples are tragedies? I agree with jpgordon that only examples with a reliable source referring to the "Curse" should be in the article.MrBlondNYC (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah but, the article doesn't actually say anything about the Kennedy Curse; rather, it's a list of people alleged to be evidence of the Kennedy Curse. --jpgordon 04:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article should be more about the concept of the curse itself with only cited examples in it. I'll help it along a little more.MrBlondNYC (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep exactly as titled. As I've noted on the talk page (after moving the article back to Kennedy Curse), the "Kennedy Curse" is not a tabloid judgment but a well-documented part of U.S. folklore. (And that's how it should be described – not, as some may imply, as a factual problem, as if some being had it in for the Kennedys. "Curse" here is largely understood as shorthand for a string of bad events.) By well-documented, I mean that there are over 200 books listed at Google Book Search that include this term. Not only does this provide a rational for keeping the title (versus trying to dig up reliable sources for "Kennedy tragedies" or any other attempt at renaming), but it should also provide months of reading for anyone who wants to improve this article. Given the tremendous quantity of reliable sources, it would be absurd to delete this article. Just mark it with an "improve" tag if necessary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, about this: make Kennedy Curse a redirect to that section in Kennedy Family that makes mention of the "curse"; and then put the contents of this article into something like "List of Kennedy Curse tragedies" or whatever, and then people can argue about what belongs on such a list. --jpgordon 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  The article has existed for over 5 years, and hasn't noticeably improved in that time. An AfD two years ago didn't improve it. It was tagged for improvement in October 2008, and nothing happened. It appears, as a result of this AfD, that a bunch of reliable sources about the "Kennedy tragedies" have now been added, but that doesn't help much, since the article is ostensibly about the "Kennedy Curse". In other words, lots of people have various theories about how this could become a proper article, but no-one seems to be able to actually make it into one. Jayjg 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - there has been long discusion of "kennedy curse." This has been discussed and not cooked up by anyone. Leave it as it is. Maybe Ted Kennedy brain tumor should be included in the list. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 97.124.255.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  According to what WP:RS? That's the whole problem with this. Oh, maybe Ted should be included. And how about Eunice? She got old. That's tragic too. --jpgordon 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a ton mentioning "kennedy tragidy" and "kennedy curse" written in many newspapers if you google one. Discussing how tragic some of the kennedy members are. I have seen plenty of kennedy tragidies discussed in many newspapers. Just google one. This is not as there is an entity called "kennedy curse," but some of these newspapers generally talk about the misfortune of the kennedy family not exactly saying they are cursed, but they are unlucky. Well the reason is Ted Kennedy got a brain tumor, which is not exactly natural cause. Anyone that died naturally is fine. Ted Kennedy is little tragic too because of cancer. But this also needs a source whether ted kennedy should be included part of the kennedy tragidy. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A brain tumor isn't a "natural cause"? What? Was his brain invaded by aliens? Is it a symptom of anthropogenic global warming? Was his brain actually robotic so any tumor there would be unnatural? Did you actually manage to successfully search for "kennedy tragidy"? --jpgordon 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is "kennedy tragedy." I'm sure you understood what I meant. http://www.google.com/search?q=kennedy+curse&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedies%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedy%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Maybe to take the heat off of the title, maybe we should make it "Kennedy curse" instead of "Kennedy Curse," which implies that they are technically "cursed." Maybe it should simply become "Kennedy tragedies," but I think "Kennedy curse" returns more entries than "kennedy tragedy." 174.16.130.70 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep In the hours after the article was nominated, sufficient sourcing was added to remove any original research problems. Needless to say, the death of Ted Kennedy provided an excuse for the media to remind us of the curse, the litany of tragedy, etc. Katie Couric practically dictated revisions on last night's news. Geez, the 1960s was practically summarized as "His brother was murdered, he broke his back in a plane crash, another brother was murdered, he caused someone to drown". Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is is covered enough widely in mainstream media to be considered notable. Google books proove that scholarly sources are available on the subject. Himalayan 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps you misunderstand; nobody has claimed that the "Kennedy Curse" is not notable. We might even need an article about it. We don't have one. --jpgordon 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, AFD then is not the answer. Hard work is the answer. It is the job of an encyclopedia to cover what is notable, if this is notable then it should be kept whatever state it is in and written into a proper article using reliable sources... Himalayan 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. It might be nice to have an article on the "Kennedy Curse". So far, we don't. Even with the addition of several more reliable sources. Jayjg 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, thank you for withdrawing your nomination? You have just stated that the article you wished to see deleted is on a topic which you say is notable. I don't need to remind you, I hope, that AfD is not for deletion (though your comments above suggest otherwise), and in the time it took you to respond to all the valid keep votes here you could have produced that entire article on the notable topic. It's plain and simple: AfD is not for improvement, and the quality of an article is to be judged separately (not here) from its subject's notability. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Not sure why I would withdraw it. While it may be possible to write an article on the "Kennedy Curse", we have yet to see any concrete evidence that it can be done, and we certainly don't have an article on it now. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but first there would have to be some reliable sources discussing the concept, and that would have to be reflected in the article. Jayjg 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rename List of Kennedy deaths, crimes, and maladies, because that's essentially what it is. Later somebody might write a Kennedy curse article true to its name. PhGustaf (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Kennedy deaths"? Eventually they'll all be listed then; I don't think any of them are immortal. --jpgordon 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news, I just bought a book on it for £0.90. I'll expand this article when the book arrives, seems a very interesting read... Himalayan 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a commonly known term. I don't think it's unfathomable that someone might search for this exact term to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family. Although, perhaps it would be better to rename it to "Kennedy Family Tragedies". HarlandQPitt (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Knowledge (XXG) is not a glossary of terms that people might be looking for. If they want to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family, there are many articles on Knowledge (XXG), starting with Kennedy family. --Crunch (talk)

• Delete C6541 (T↔C) 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kennedy family and merge if there's anything to be merged. The opening paragraphs of that article already describe this in enough detail. And, as has been suggested above, at what age does the curse end and who decides this? Or how horrific do the deaths have to be? Just not enough for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Anyone who searches for the term will end up at the family article where they will find out much more about them than a supposed curse I would hope. --candle•wicke 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per nom and Redirect to Kennedy family . The notion of a curse is original research at best, based on one or two articles at best.--Crunch (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reconsidered. See below. --Crunch (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep it is clear that the term is widely and commonly used by mainstream reliable sources. While it is discouraging that no clean up was conducted after the last AfD in the long period since the last, need for clean up is not reason to delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is a very notable subject and it is properly sourced.72.155.236.5 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — 72.155.236.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Knowledge (XXG) should not get into political correctness. The subject is in the popular folklore (like it or not) and Knowledge (XXG) will serve to provide coherency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant11 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — Consultant11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Huh? What does "political correctness" have to do with anything? Jayjg 06:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, perhaps attacking every person who disagrees with you is not the way to marshal an article through AfD. — MusicMaker5376 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The only attack here so far is the comment you just made. Not only is it grossly inaccurate (considering that I've responded to only 4 of the 16 Keep/Merge votes), but it's inappropriately personal to link to WP:DICK. Perhaps you should review Matthew 7:5. Jayjg 04:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fortunately, this discussion can be closed after a couple more days. It appears that the consensus, although not a snowball, is overwhelming. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sources clearly exist, indicating notability. The article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeep - the whole premise behind the topic is dumb, but so is that behind the idea of a flat earth. In both cases, however, the topics are notable and knowledge of them is widespread. Malick78 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep The lack of improvement of an article in intervening years is not a good argument for deletion. There are many google hits in google books for this. The "curse" is so well known that it has been mocked in The Onion here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The notion has been in popular circulation for a long time, it's definitely not a WP creation as the nom seems to think. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• KeepPer Wasted Time. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)`
• Keep Per Malick78 and WastedTime. 3.14 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I have reconsidered my vote and now support a Keep with a rewrite making it clear that 1) This is a theory not a fact; 2) stating the divergent view including statements from the Kennedy family debunking the notion of the curse; and 3) keeping the list of curses to only those that were put forth in the original curse publication (Klein book), not things like Ted Kennedy's cancer death or Eunice Shriver's death from a stroke at age 88. --Crunch (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep--the term was coined by Teddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.161.17 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as notable term. Definitely need to keep/improve the various references to show it is not WP:OR. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - a notable term, well sourced, no valid reason for deletion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

A nonnotable neologism for a way of cannabis smoking coined by "a group of friends" with the only ref from urban Dictionary - Altenmann >t 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable source to verify the existence of the term in this context, never mind its notability. All the Google hits seem to relate to pastry. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of reliable independent sources covering this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable. Mukadderat (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Article has been speedied once and it declined, though it doesn't meet WP:CORP and it fails notability. Spam should not allow in the article and it is purely a minor company. ApprenticeFan 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, obvious advertising for a non-consumer business: a provider of automated "virtual agents" that answer and make calls for contact centers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage in reliable sources, so NN. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What are the criteria for "reliable sources"? NewScientist.com, SpeechTechMag.com, and KurzweilAI.net are all significant media sources (science/industry publications) that have been established for many years and have a large readership. The AGI theory developed by Peter Voss, the founder and chief scientist at SmartAction, appears as a chapter in the 2007 book "Artificial General Intelligence" published by Springer, the world's largest STM (science, technical, and medical) publisher. What is notable (and what caught my attention, as well as that of significant third-party media sources including those mentioned above) is the technology (AGI and AGI-based IVR) developed by this company, rather than the commercial aspects of the company. I propose editing out any text that sounds commercial, but retaining the discussion of the technology. The Knowledge (XXG) page name could also be changed to "SmartAction IVR" to highlight that the focus is on the technology, rather than the company. R001605 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — R001605 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • speechtechmag I don't call that "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • kurzweilai This is significant. So, you just need another source to satisfy "multiple". --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • newscientist This is borderline significant. So I'm now neutral. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: the creator is actually a newbie which using single purpose account. ApprenticeFan 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• comment eh, at under 100 edits...those being the creation and defense of an article I can understand why they are a spa...if there was variety in their edits at this time it would shock me.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete promotional, and no 3rd party sources for notability of the product. AGI is certainly notable, and so may Voss, but that can not necessarily be extended to the product. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. It's quite a learning curve! I had added more information about the technology to make the article more "encyclopedic", but then got told that this information makes the article less encyclopedic! I'm now thinking that I'll remove most of the information and integrate the remaining notable aspects with the artificial general intelligence and interactive voice response articles. I notice the artificial general intelligence article already has a reference to Adaptive AI, Inc.—the R&D parent of SmartAction—but no article yet. So perhaps I should start an article for Adaptive AI, Inc. and shift the relevant information over to that article? Any suggestions are appreciated—especially constructive feedback regarding what to do (as opposed to what not to do). I'm trying to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As some other editors have noted, there is notable information here that deserves to be in Knowledge (XXG), but there is extraneous information which I had uncritically picked up from the news articles and company website that sounds like advertising and should be removed or rewritten. Thanks, R001605 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the suggestion that the technology (AGI) that SmartAction created is certainly notable, but that the product and the company aren't notable: Isn't this a bit like saying the Olympic records set by Michael Phelps are notable, but Michael Phelps himself isn't notable? Either way, something here is clearly notable, so I would like to preserve what is notable, and would appreciate any suggestions (or direct help) on how to do that. It would be disappointing and discouraging if the first toe I dipped into the Knowledge (XXG) pool got frozen or bitten off needlessly ;-) Thanks, R001605 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm throwing an ignore all rules vote in on this one. While I don't believe that this article has enough significant sources yet, it has been steadily improved since I nominated it for speedy deletion two weeks ago. Now it reads like an encyclopedia article (well more than some I have read) and it is quite interesting in my opinion. ROO1605 has demonstrated her/his ability to take constructive feedback and significantly improve an article...something myself and many other editors could learn from. so while I don't believe this article will be up to standard by the time this AFD is over, I think it has the potential to be a good article...hence the WP:IAR vote.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you, Coffeepusher, for your vote of confidence! It means a lot to me, and gives me new energy and motivation to continue improving my Knowledge (XXG) editing skills. I found, and added, two third-party references that I think relate to notability of the product: SoCalTech.com is the leading high tech news site for Southern California tech companies. It has two recent mentions of major new customers signed by SmartAction: Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics and Technology for Business. Considering that it is hard for new products to enter an established market, I doubt that these two companies would have signed up for SmartAction's IVR product if it wasn't "notable". But I'm not yet sufficiently experienced with Knowledge (XXG)'s standards to know whether these two references qualify as notable mentions of the product. I'd appreciate any feedback. R001605 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• delete no evidence of notability/achievements/recognition presented. Mukadderat (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The author, company, and book should be included in some form as they have been covered in reliable independent sources. It's not huge notability, but it's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• This source has significant coverage and should be added. I didn't see it in the refs section . ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you, ChildofMidnight, I've added the reference. R001605 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Mukadderat, the article lists several independent, third-party references. At least three of these (NewScientist, KurzweilAI, and Publico.es) are indisputably significant news sources, so the fact that they consider the company and its products important enough to feature them, is a strong indication of notability. As far as achievements and recognition are concerned, the strongest evidence is significant customers willing to pay real money for the product. A quick Google search immediately brought up two significant customers (Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics (MFALS) and Technology for Business) and I'm sure a more thorough search would produce more. MFALS has been in business since 1977 and counts some of the world's largest companies among its clients: Walmart, General Motors, Walt Disney, Sears, American Express, Citibank, Home Depot, and many others. Here's what Hal Altman, MFALS founder and CEO, says about SmartAction and its products: “Up until we acquired the SmartAction solution we didn’t offer our clients the option to answer their customer-service calls with an IVR. We have been giving a ‘human touch’ service since we launched our business in 1977, but many of our clients asked us to lower their costs by handling routine customer-service calls with an automated self-service solution. We chose SmartAction because of their superior technical capabilities, highly competitive prices and, above all, total commitment to give us headache-free service from A to Z.” That sounds like "recognition/achievement" to me—not bad for a company that started commercial operations barely six months ago in a tough economic environment. R001605 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep More depth in the sources would be better, but there is certainly independent notice. This might work better as a section at Peter Voss, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

absence of word mughal kiyani in most of references and references given in article didnt matches with real context and references are misused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs)

• This nomination was incomplete; the above is the reason suggested by the person who originally attempted to nominate the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

the actual point is about the article the references tells nothing about mughal kiyani (the title of article) insteadly it talks about kiyanis history or mughals history seperatly note mughals is a separate tribe mainly refer to mongols and kiyani is a surname used by ghakkars in rawalpindi region of pakistan which claims to be a persian tribe due to their claim of descendents of ancient kianian kings of iran and also by some tribes in afghanistan and iran who claim to be descents of ancient semi mythilogical kianian kings mughals and kiyanis are seperate words used by seperate groups of peaple any historical document didnt tells us any relation between them the main question was about mughal kiyani any reference given by writer of article didnt contain the word mughal kiyani and didnt talks about mughal kiyani that what is its history what is a valid prove of mughal kiyani being a real mughal clan as writer has written it as a clan of mughal tribe the writer has given invalid and false proves about them i think the basic purpose of wikipedia is to provide a valid and true information based on valid and sufficiant proves as i say above most of information given in article didnt discuss the real topic mughal kiyani and which disuss is not valid or which proves that mughal kiyani is a clan so my request was that delete this article which is based on falses references and the information given about kiyanis and mughals should be moved to their seperate articles(kiyani,ghakkar and mughal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.99.193 (talk • contribs)

according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed in the light of above reasons for deletion in wikipedia deletion policy this article should be deleted because this article(kiyani mughal) didnt attributes to reliable sources original theories and conclusions and this article is also a hoaxe and all attempts to find a reliable sources to verify this article have failed these all reason are applying on article mughal kiyani and information written in article about mughal kiyani so this should be delete as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not convinced by the pro-deletion comments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

mr metropolian90 what should i do to convinced u I was talking about the articles main topic mughal kiyani the writer of the article divides it in to 3 paragraphs with following headlines history ,other kiyani tribes and diaspora in history paragraph in starting lines and in dispora he writes about mughal kiyanis in which only in history paragraph he gives 3 references about mughal kiyanis most of references are misused and didnt proves or gives us a valid information for examples as writer gives a reference from punjab caste p212 Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis

the full line or paragraph is as I have not been able to obtain saticfactory information regarding this word(kiyani).some says the city of kayan was the capital of kai kayus kai kusru and kai kubad and some says that the ghakkars callthemselves kiyani because they claim descent from these three kings.Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis and that the ghakkars call them selves canani or cananits because they claim descent from jacob or yacub who lived in canaan and that is the word which has been misread as kiyani(http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up)

first of all author of the book(punjab castes) was not sure about above information which is based on different opinions secondly it didnt contain the word mughal kiyani main topic of the article or gives us a direct wording or use of word mughal kiyani or hteir existences as a clan the writer just misused the reference similarly other 2 references are also miused eg references from punjabi muslamans p94 and punjab cheifs p216 given by writer was not founded in original textMedia:http://www.archive.org/stream/punjabimusalmans00wikeuoft#page/94/mode/1up http://www.apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/ as u know that any information without acceptable or valid references is considered as invaild and anyone cannot proved it without references.as i say above that mughal kiyani is the main topic or name of article but its reference from real context didnt gives us a valid or realiable information or even didnt talks about the topic about the main topic mughal kiyani so it should be deleted under the deletion policy of wikipedia the paragraph other kiyani tribes mainly talks about kianis history and mughals history separatly and didnt gives or talk about mughal kiyani as seprate articles of mughals and kiyanis were given so this information should be written or moved to these articles separatly as information given about mughals should be moved to mughal article and kiyani information should be moved to kiyani article even now if u were not convinced then plz my freind tell me how u will convinced for its deletion according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed this article should be deleted because there is not a single reliable source which verify this article and i didnt found a single reliable source which confrimed it so plz my friend delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep there seems to be sources. There seems to be a dispute about the exact status, but that's for the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

i think my friend dgg u didnt understand what i want to say or what was my point for suggesting this article for deletion.in article writer mainly writes about the topic of mughal kiyani which is also the title of article it simply means that the article is about mughal kiyani as u know that any information is not considered as proveable or acceptable without realiable references or sources in wikipedia in article mughal kiyani writer writes on his own giving wrong references if we would found any realiable reference about mughal kiyani we would discuss it but there is not a single realiable source which even talks about the mughal kiyani or given information in the article u will even not able to found a single realiable source regarding the article. main point is that there is not a single realiable source which confrim the information given in article or even talks about the article so it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.100.122 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - these clan/tribal articles are all horrific OR magnets, exposed to bitter feuds about whether some clan was Pathan or Moghul or whatever; whether their apical ancestors really existed or were just mythical; and so on and so forth. Its the same story every time, and these articles are invariably based (often exclusively, as here too) on 100+ year old British army-diary sources. Even then, only very few of these clan articles are sufficiently well documented for anything more than a line or two, and most could in fact be redirects to the article on the next higher tribal unit (e.g. Kayani Mughal => Mughal (tribe)#Kayani). In short, this article is really just another representative of the wild and wooly Central Asian tribalism (tribes and subtribes and ethnicities and subethnicities and clans and subclans and subsubsubsub-clans).

That's not per-se a reason for delete though. The fact that at least one source identifies the "Kiáni" as a "clan" of "Moghal" is (IMO) sufficient evidence that such a clan exists and that the title "Kayani Mughal" is not a hoax.

While I am in agreement with the nominator that the sources are being abused (what is the "Other Kayani tribes" coatrack doing there?), that is not sufficient reason to delete the article either.

The nominator appears to be familiar with tribal makeups in the region, perhaps even with the Mughal tribe/Kayani clan in particular, so I suggest that he/she cleanup the article (remove the problematic material) rather that ask for the article to be deleted. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep but keep it stubby until more reliable information can be found. Some of the old content sounds like the transcript of a speech given in front of a campfire. - Richfife (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Manor Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This school is notable for having performed so poorly that it was forcibly closed. The article forms part of a group - see also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• You can't be serious - you're suggesting it's notable for closing? Schools close all the time. And in any case, you're incorrect - it came out of special measures (meaning it improved), and was closed for falling pupil numbers. Any school with numbers well below its population level are closed, as they become too expensive to maintain. Majorly talk 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose the fall in numbers had something to do with its performance. Anyway, these matters were sufficient to be reported and so this topic is notable. The existence of other closing schools is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any reliable third party sources to suggest notability of the school, when it was actually open? Because this just looks like a case of "It's notable because it closed". Which isn't logical. Majorly talk 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Of course. I'm going to bed now but shall return. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Consider these views with discretion." And in any case I'm not referring to any article, which is precisely what that essay is about. It's whether other articles exist. I'm simply discussing real life here. Majorly talk 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'll change if Colonel Warden establishes notability, however from a quick look around google, it looks unlikely if I'm honest. Jeni 01:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory, especially of closed primary schools. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford] per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. While secondary schools and school districts are treated as inherently notable, primary schools have to establish notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Absent significant reasons for its closure, not notable Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability stated. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even worth a redirect, as the article completely fails to demonstrate the notability of this rather ordinary primary school. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Mukadderat (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education. Tone 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Majorly talk 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing anywhere to give any sniff of notability. Jeni 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education] per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. While secondary schools and school districts require no sniffing effort, primary schools have to establish the sniff of notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete,. no notability stated. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Mukadderat (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Stockport#Primary schools. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Peacefield Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Schools get awards all the time, it's nothing special. Majorly talk 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Topics are not required to be special to be covered in Knowledge (XXG), per our guideline. This topic just requires more attention in accordance with our editing policy. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Cant find anything special on google (web/books/news) about this school. Jeni 01:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Stockport#Primary schools per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Stockport#Primary schools per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The two school achievement awards out of London might count toward notability, depending on the circumstances. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. A very quick google suggests 7000 odd schools a year have won School of achievement awards. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Stockport#Primary schools until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above.Mukadderat (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Werneth, Greater Manchester. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Werneth Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep One of a series of articles nominated together without due process. I shall improve this too when time permits. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note The statement "One of a series of articles nominated together without due process" is completely false. I properly checked every single article I nominated. Majorly talk 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete another primary school with no notability. Jeni 01:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Werneth per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Werneth] per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. While secondary schools and school districts are treated as inherently notable, primary schools have to establish notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable Pit-yacker (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Admrboltz (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Mukadderat (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Oldham or Werneth, Greater Manchester until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent NPOV, V, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walkden#Education. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

St Pauls Crompton Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep One of a series of articles nominated together without due process. I shall improve this too when time permits. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note The statement "One of a series of articles nominated together without due process" is completely false. I properly checked every single article I nominated. Majorly talk 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Taking this case for another example, you neither engaged in discussion at the article's talk page nor contacted the article's original author. These AFD nominations seem to have been a reflex reaction to removal of the prods. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately trying to miss the point here, or are you just going to rudely "tsk" at me? Nobody is going to be watching the talk page - look at how many people edited the article. The original creator last edited in 2008. Both of those options are out. I bring it here for discussion amongst more people. I believe it fails WP:N horribly - it asserts no notability whatsoever. Majorly talk 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject to give their opinions here. Majorly talk 00:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non notable primary school. Jeni 01:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Walkden#Education per precedent. There is no reason to delete this content. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Walkden#Education per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. While secondary schools and school districts are treated as inherently notable, primary schools have to establish notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No notability stated. Article could be created again within 5mins where any notability established. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. This one sentence sub-stub could easily be recreated if a case for this school's notability could ever be made, which seems to be rather unlikely. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Walkden#Education until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Mukadderat (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Bury. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

St John's CofE Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no notability demonstrated. Jeni 01:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - an outstanding Ofsted assessment is an objective measure that demonstrates notability. TerriersFan (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• No it isn't. Where are the sources? Where is the notability? Majorly talk 02:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right; the source describes the inspection results as outstanding in the general sense rather than the specific. TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury per precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge based on Terriers' analysis of the Ofsted assessment. Outstanding is the highest of the four choices for a rating, and there are many primary schools around the world that get the highest rating. That, by itself, would not be comparable to a blue-ribbon award. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Pit-yacker (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Mukadderat (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Golf Shopping Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Very narrowly available TV channel, no sources found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like more of a TV show that airs during infomercial times on a low-tier network (for example, Ion Television airs a program called "Knife Show" during weekend overnights). Not-notable and network's video website suggests by show timing it is a run of the mill infomercial with hilarious claims about their reach (150 million households? America and Canada combined don't even get near 130 million households). Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable; just a WP:PROMOTION. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of notability and basically spam. Smartse (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sources other than press releases. --Tikilounge (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Oldham. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenhill Primary School (Oldham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as failing to provide any evidence of encyclopaedic notability. The unsourced statement "The school has been very successful in the last few years resulting in some of the highest value added scores in the country." is an assertion of notability in my book, but even if it were verified then it wouldn't be sufficient for an article (If it was consistently getting the highest scores for several years, then I would consider it). Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep One of a series of articles nominated together without due process. I shall improve this too when time permits. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note The statement "One of a series of articles nominated together without due process" is completely false. I properly checked every single article I nominated. Majorly talk 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Jeni 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Oldham per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Oldham per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The article suggests ("some of the highest scores in the country") that the school might have achieved national recognition or an award. If that's demonstrated, then a keep might be appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Contextual Value Added is a statistic manufactured by the government and there is a great deal of debate as to its statistical significance. CVA attempts to measure how much a school improves its pupils given their background and their results between when they start and leave the school. As such it tends to favour schools in poorer areas where there is scope to improve the performance of pupils. I understand that on the whole the differences in scores are effectively meaningless. The average score by definition is 100, this school scores 102.6. The highest is 104.5., the lowest is 96.1 . Pit-yacker (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Oldham until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gorse Hill Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep One of a series of articles nominated together without due process. I shall improve this too when time permits. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note The statement "One of a series of articles nominated together without due process" is completely false. I properly checked every single article I nominated. Majorly talk 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jeni 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. While secondary schools and school districts are treated as inherently notable, primary schools have to establish notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely no notability asserted. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Flixton Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep One of a series of articles nominated together without due process. I shall improve this too when time permits. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greenhill Primary School. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note The statement "One of a series of articles nominated together without due process" is completely false. I properly checked every single article I nominated. Majorly talk 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator deletion's rationale is WP:JNN and lack of importance, which is not valid. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know why I bother checking for sources, as predicted, nothing noteworthy. Jeni 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per precedent. While secondary schools and school districts are treated as inherently notable, primary schools have to establish notability in the usual way. When a school within a district does receive significant coverage beyond the local level, then a separate article can be spun out. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability stated. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Trafford until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN, or the target might be Flixton, Greater Manchester. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jеwitt, аrthur (1772–1852) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. We already have an article about him at Arthur Jewitt. This title is an extremely unlikely search term, so no need to redirect. Deor (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nominator needs to have a look at WP:BEFORE --- notability is clearly established by a Google Books search. But per Deor we already have an article and this title is implausible as a redirect. Also this is probably a copyvio of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry (the creator has copy-pasted a number of articles from there). cab (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete We already have an article on the subject. Edward321 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Bury. Spartaz 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenhill Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to have been nominated in a deletion spree made without due diligence. Improvement of the article to cite sources which assert notability proves easy when one makes the effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neither of the sources assert any actual notability. One is about a "Golden Shoe" prize, and the other briefly mentions the school among others. Both are reports by the local newspaper. This is hardly significant coverage to suggest notability. Majorly talk 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's enough to show that the article is not a hopeless case and so your nominations have been too hasty. Our deletion policy makes it clear that articles should not be nominated without making some effort to engage with the topic. There doesn't seem to be the slightest case for deletion here as, at the very least, we can consolidate this material into a larger article about the region's schools. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree, two insignificant mentions in the local newspaper shows no notability. The fact that this school isn't discussed significantly in reliable third party sources is a very good reason for deletion. Perhaps not to you, but as I said, we disagree. There's nothing of any importance in this article that's worth merging anywhere else. If I had thought merging was suitable, I'd have suggested it. Majorly talk 23:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Colonel Warden's keep !vote is lacking a valid rationale, not to mention assuming bad faith. Jeni 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the sources don't establish any reasonable notability, and I can't find that much myself. Jeni 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury per precedent. This is a valid search term. Cunard (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury per precedent. WP:Before requires consideration of a merge before deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect Per lack of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Local paper reporting on test results is not enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as not notable. The award that the school won (Golden Shoe) might be notable enough for its own article, although I can't tell from the context whether this is a singular award, or one that goes to many schools. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No notability stated. A couple of regurgitated press-releases in the local rag don't establish any real notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Bury until there are sufficient reliable sources for an independent V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Consensus is that primary schools are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. Lack of notability is a reason to deny an institution its own page but not a reason not to merge or redirect. We routinely merge non-notable subjects into broader, more notable, articles and the redirect helps readers find the material. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a probable copyvio of the Oxford DNB entry. (I'm not going to subscribe to the thing to make sure; but the word counts seem to match, and the form of the lemma is a giveaway.) Deor (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess I'll have to change my !vote to weak keep on the basis of CaliforniaAliBaba's rewrite, though I hate to do so. I'm of the opinion that when an article begins its life as a copyvio in toto, it should be wiped out; I don't like to see copyvios hanging around even in article histories. CAB could have let this be deleted, then created a new article (at a correctly styled title) with his/her text. I fail to comprehend what moving plus supplying completely new text gains us here. Deor (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I vaguely recall the procedure being to oversight it out of the history only if the copyright owner asked, and doing nothing at all otherwise. Has that changed recently? I haven't been paying attention too closely, to be honest. cab (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I was just grousing. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong, exactly; I just don't see the point. Instead of moving this article, along with the copyvio in its history, why not simply create your new article at the proper title? Deor (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep restubbed based on an 1825 source. An entry in the DNB is a clear indicator of notability. cab (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per being in the DNB. Whatever that is. I trust CAB that it's a clear indicator of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Directory of Non-notable Bollocks. Not to be confused with the Dictionary of National Biography. Thank you for your trust in 3-letter acronyms, cab (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep as rewritten, but I would agree that the closing admin must delete the initional copyvio version and notify user:cab for recreation. Mukadderat (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep --- typing "Ham Mukasa" into Google Books makes it quite clear. Article can easily be expanded with any of the hundreds of sources there. I've already rewritten the probably copyvio and added a photo. cab (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete not notable and poorly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbdfn0 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Also there is no need to put in so many spaces. (Note to closing admin: the above is the original author of the article, which has since been rewritten). cab (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also you are no doubt aware that he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, since that's where you plagiarised the article from -- having an entry in the ODNB is a reasonable indicator of notability. cab (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • but its from the old dictionary not the new one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbdfn0 (talk • contribs)
        • I highly doubt that. The author listed for the entry is M. Louise Pirouet, who is a present-day scholar. The material you pasted in earlier discusses events up to his death in 1956. That means that text has not yet fallen into the public domain as it is too new. Also please stop replacing single spaces with double spaces. cab (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Edward321 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Transnational Giving Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:CORP, Gnews search produces all of 3 hits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The three Google News hits do not represent significant coverage with two only being a mention. I'm not able to quite decipher what the third is. But in any event, that's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake Worth Lagoon. merge makes sense since its going to be an obvious redirect anyway Spartaz 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

It's non-notable event. Someone saw a wake on the surface of the water and called it a "muck monster". Donald Albury 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• delete; only one source. not notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge it with a site to the appropriate listing of monsters sighted? Or just delete it. But it does seem kind of fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Better yet, redirect to a brief mention in Lake Worth Lagoon pending further sightings and investigations. It's been reported in several sources , but I don't think it merits its own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The 'several sources' are all repeating the same report. The people who took the video apparently contacted all the local news outlets. I don't think it's notable enough to be mentioned in the Lake Worth Lagoon article, either. -- Donald Albury 10:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete until it actually does catch on as a local legend. No need to merge to Soliton, either. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge in a shortened fashion to Lake Worth Lagoon. It may be pack journalism, but there are non-identical stories in 16 mainstream newspapers, plus one in the Weekly World News (not a reliable source). Cnilep (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I think it should be deleted unless sometime in the future, the Muck Monster is considered notable enough to be a cryptid. Dogposter 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It was mentiond on The Late Show with David Letterman as a Top-10 list: "The Top-10 Questions Received by Palm Beach County Authorities about the Muck Monster." --Auric (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What are the arguments against a merge of something that has been reported on by numerous newspapers and seems, to me at least, to be worth mentioning in the article on the lagoon where it occured? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Merge Not notable by itself. Not opposed to full delete, but merge makes sense. Whitespider23 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1998 Little League World Series. Spartaz 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

1998 Little League World Series Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Delete: The players on the team fail WP:N and this team specifically should not have their own separate page. If anything this should be merged with 1998 Little League World Series but even then I think that's asking too much. If you look at the page edit history, you'll see that the moniker Cardone22 created the page, and one of the players listed on the roster was a child named Christopher Cardone. It's biased and trivial anyway. Jrcla2 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Verifiable information that is notable can be placed in 1998 Little League World Series.Location (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete and merge the nickname information, if verifiable, with 1998 Little League World Series. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge some of this to 1998 Little League World Series, which has plenty of room. The roster seems worthwhile to have, and the names of the team members can be verified at LittleLeague.org Zagalejo^^^ 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: How is the roster notable? The only player that is worth keeping after the merge is Todd Frazier, who has his own article for other reasons. I'm just wondering because simply being able to verify the official roster list doesn't mean it's notable. Jrcla2 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I just think depth of coverage is a good thing. Individual elements within an article don't fall under the scope of WP:N. Granted, most of the names won't mean much to anyone outside of New Jersey, but I don't understand why removing such information would improve Knowledge (XXG). A LLWS roster is not substantially different than the detailed coverage we provide at our Olympics articles. I'm sure most of the names at Table tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's singles are meaningless to the vast majority of our readers, but they're there, anyway! And I think that's pretty cool. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand that parts of whole articles most often cannot stand alone as notable. I guess I am just seeing your argument, but from the other side: why would keeping such trivial information improve Knowledge (XXG)? They're all essentially non-notable kids other than having been on a roster that won the LLWS. And, not to sound like a jerk because that is not my intention at all in saying this, but your argument about the table tennis players doesn't really apply here because all of those men are Olympians (even though it is a less popular sport). Each one of those table tennis Olympians can rightfully have their own WP page if someone felt like making them, whereas the kids on the roster on this AfD page could not. Also, and I'm aware this isn't going to factor into whether this article should be deleted or not, but I'm from New Jersey and none of those names mean anything to us either, unless you're from Toms River. Just saying. Jrcla2 06:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge roster to 1998 Little League World Series. Just because most of the individual players don't warrant individual articles is no reason to exclude verifiable information on the team roster. Many articles mention individuals that are not individually notable for their own articles. And the guidelines for lists explcitily permit lists whose reason for being is that they include subjects that would not be notable enough for their own articles. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think that a team that has won the Little League World Series is easily notable enough for its own article, given the recognition in books and the media of that annual event. Merger is also an option, although I'm not sure how long a paragraph about the team would last within an article about the series itself. If kept, then move the title to something that doesn't make a secret of Toms River, New Jersey. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. I don't believe an individual team is notable. Secret 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if WP:PROF may not be completely met, there is still some WP:N here so I am closing this as a keep (and edit, sure). Tone 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Gary Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF and there is no evidence of notability under WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is debate from talk page:

• 1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No.

• 2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No AFAIK.

• 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts. I would say no.

• 4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No.

• 5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

No; he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment. No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.

• 6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.

• 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No.

• 8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

No.

• 9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No.

So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona. I am not informed enough on that program to comment. Discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After consulting the University of Arizona website:

• 3: No.
• 6: No.

VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department. Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing deletion of this article on the grounds that Schwartz fails to meet the WP:PROF criteria as per my previous analysis.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Here's the standard short bio for Schwartz:

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health and its Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. Dr. Schwartz has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, is the author of The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.

Sounds very notable to me. His center might seem "fringe" but it is the University of Arizona, after all, and couldn't be that disreputable. But even if you decide he fails on the WP:PROF guidelines, I think he would still make it just on the general WP:N guidelines--he's apparently quite well known. So I'll be bold and remove the tag, to make it clear there is no consensus for deletion.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

None of that matters for the criteria of WP:PROF. Not every professor is notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards. I'm putting the prod tag back. IF you disagree please address the points in the analysis above.Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe he meets WP:N either.Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just to clarify, the fringe status of his work is not the reason I doubt he meets WP:PROF. The reason why I doubt his notability is because his directorship of VERITAS is the directorship of a research project within a department and the WP:PROF guidelines specify that a professor is notable if he holds, and I quote:

• a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,
• a position as an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
• a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
• a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

And directorship of VERITAS does not meet those criteria.Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for sake of comparisson Anthon.Eff I know you are active on the Ian Stevenson page. Now Stevenson is widely considered a fringe professor for... research... not much different from that of Schwartz. However Stevenson is notable. Why? Because he was the head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia; that meets the WP:PROF criteria of:

• a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Do you see what I am saying?

You apparently didn't read your own template. It says that if it is removed, don't replace it. So don't. Your next step, if you wish to pursue this, would be WP:AFD. You can try your line of reasoning there.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternate: Even if he is a professional, he doesn't need to make it solely on those criteria. Did he get reliable source coverage for his work or other things he did ? Even work that is questionable relevance to field could get substantial RS coverage- did he discover cold fusion- this wouldn't win him any awards or even make useful advances in the firld but would get lots of coverage and attract a rather diverse audience of gawkers. Also, this whole notion of "highly selective" etc is very subjective. If a national Creationism society gave one award a year, and got a national publication that isn't dedicated to Creationism but has a religious interest and reports factual matters faithfully, would that make the person notable? I can't remember seeing an IEEE fellow mentioned on CNN or VH1 so I'm not sure what the criteria would be here. Essentially you need to demonstrate that a large group of relevant people already have noted the topic as being of interest but when you start talking about "relevant people" you run into subjective issues. Certainly the term "Scholarly" suggests more an interest in rigour and merit than popularity but a scholar of the Bible can be just as much a scholar as any other, certainly a poet or artist. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject may not directly meet the guidelines at WP:PROF, however, it seems that there is enough coverage to keep this one around per WP:GNG. The LA Times calls him "a famous tester of mediums" and an article in Metro.co.uk reports: "Schwartz is the only scientist from a recognised university to investigate whether mediumship exists." And for doing work that some may state is not notable, the skeptic community seems to invest a fair bit of energy debunking it:. It has also been discussed on CNN: and. He has been interviewed on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and in USA Today. His work was featured in an HBO documentary and his research subject for 4 years is the basis for NBC's Medium (TV series). (For what little it is worth, here is also a very brief mention of him in Time (magazine) from 1974:.) Location (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup (edit conflict). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry hosts at least two articles devoted in large part to Schwartz (search). James Randi informally described him as the current darling of the media, indicating that there should be additional sourcing available. Said sourcing desperately needs to be used, as currently over half of the references are to Schwartz's book, and several others are to material unrelated to his notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We can hardly speak to sources not included in the article. My statement that Schwartz does not meet WP:GNG are largely based on the self-referential nature of the references in the article. Almost everything links back to his own book; I see no indication of significant third party coverage. Although I respect Randi, he is not an expert on the media.Simonm223 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, it is perfectly acceptable in an Afd to discuss sources that should be included in the article but currently are not. WP:BEFORE states in bold: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Secondly, significant third party coverage is not required for an article to conform to WP:V. WP:SECONDARY states: "Knowledge (XXG) articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." and "Our policy: Knowledge (XXG) articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." Finally, James Randi is probably the best known skeptic and debunker of paranormal and supernatural claims and as such is an exquisite example of a reliable secondary source for this article. Location (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the notability tag has been on this article since January. That is ample time for RSes to be added to the article. They have not been.Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. So did you nominate this article because the subject is not notable or because it is missing appropriate sources? Location (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The absence of reliable sources points to the failure of the article to meet WP:GNG. The two avenues for notability for this article are WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As I have demonstrated it does not meet WP:PROF this makes the presence or absence of RS pivotal to notability.Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I am confused since you almost seemed to imply from the "ample time" comment that it's too late to add the sources. Now that the sources by Randi and others have been pointed out, are you stating that they are not reliable? Location (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Randi is a reliable source for his own opinion of Schwartz and not much else; invective such as "media darling" is empty rhetoric without any real worth unless it can be backed up.Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just finished reviewing the sources, excluding ones that Schwartz was author of. With one exception (Geraldo) they are articles from skeptical publications critiquing his research methodology. Although some are certainly reliable sources I doubt they constitute enough second party discussion to constitue notability under WP:GNG.Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Of course the vast majority of sources that discuss Schwartz are going to be either from paranormal skeptics or paranormal believers discussing his research and methodology because it is his work with parapsychology that has made him notable. Location (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment And I understand your point however 8 media items over the course of as many years hardly represents a heated debate. And that is how many non-primary RSes there are in this article, including Randi.Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notability meets guidelines and any faults with the sources in the article can be addressed by editing and the addition of more reliable sources that haven't yet been included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Article is being used as a soapbox for the subject's views and activities. Prune severely to biography and links to subject's web site. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

• Edit & Keep. He has some notability as a "paranormal researcher", media figure, and author, and one could say he's a slightly more successful version of Professor Paranormal. Such personalities often present themselves as notable scientific academics, so strip away all the puffery and excess detail to avoid having this BIO be a WP:COATRACK pushing the supposed achievements of psychics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Edit & Keep.With apologies to Simonm223, who argues his case well, I must agree with LuckyLouie. If the outcome of this discussion happens to be "Edit & Keep", it should be stipulated that this indicates a consensus to trim the article severely, and edit warriors who then try to preserve it in its present state should be sanctioned quickly instead of a whole new cycle of RfCs etc. having to be started. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Based on an internet search, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability is asserted or apparent from a short Google. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional CRYSTALballery. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, seemingly fails notability, and is a collection of predictions and guesses. Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. The only result I can find when searching for it that is directly related is Knowledge (XXG) itself. --Taelus (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Cerebellum (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete while "non-notable" may not be a valid reason for deletion, lack of verifiability certainly is. And this book series gets no Google News or Google Books hits. I did what I could to help the article should sources surface. Sincerely, --A Nobody 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unsourced... weirdness. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew his nomination. --kelapstick (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)

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

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

Prod removed with only the explanation "there is a V word." There isn't. There is an article The V Word, and this dab page should be a redirect. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• redirect per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• It doesn't take AFD, or any administrative tool, to enact a redirect. Please only bring things to Articles for deletion when use of the deletion tool by an administrator is the means to achieve your desired outcome. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. I think I am here really looking for a stick, for I foresee contention. Also, I don't know what I was thinking earlier. Thanks. Any passing admin: I withdraw this nomination (since it makes no sense), and future contention will be taken to an administrators' board. I apologize for wasting folks' time. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jon Crowe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Jon Crowe Jon Crowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I PRODed the article stating, "Subject is a musician who is not mentioned in any news media or books I can find; according to the page, has not released multiple major-label or large independent label records, and has not charted or earned gold records. Does not appear to meet guidelines for WP:Notability (music)." PROD was removed by an editor who then proposed speedy A7. Speedy was declined. I stand by my PROD rationale. Cnilep (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect and merge anything worthwhile to band's article, Character Nine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Character Nine, per ChildofMidnight, unless Character Nine gets deleted (per comment below), in which case this should be deleted as well. Rlendog (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Per comment beliow, if Character Nine is deleted, then this should be too. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: Editors recommending redirection to Character Nine may wish to comment at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Character Nine as well. Cnilep (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: Character Nine has been deleted per AfD. Cnilep (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete recommendation, as I will probably recommend deleting the parent article. A google search didn't turn up anything of substance on the band member himself, and neither did a print database search. From a decent attempt to look for suggestions of significant sources, nothing could be found. Martin Raybourne (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Newcastle United F.C. directors and chairmen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) List of Newcastle United F.C. directors and chairmen List of Newcastle United F.C. directors and chairmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NOTDIR. A list of chairmen is in the main article and that is sufficient (even if not enough, then the content of this article can easily be added there). This is not a normal type of article for other football clubs and I don't see a need for it. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - I think the arguments for deletion are silly and ridiculous. If the content from this article was to be be added to the main article it would be way to long. The article also have references for directors etc. which are not mentioned at all in main article of nufc. If this article should be deleted in reference to WP:NOTDIR we can start delete all article which list of players, staff etc. Keallu (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - This article is utterly pointless. If a list of Newcastle United's chairmen is required, just add a small table to the club's main article. There's no need for a separate article dedicated to this narrow subject. – PeeJay 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR. The table is not too long to be added to main article if necessary - if we start having standalone lists for this we may as well start List of Newcastle United F.C. kitchen staff. Also, User:Keallu's keep nomination verges on WP:WAX. 03md 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ......plus of course he/she is the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete no need for separate article. Most of the people in the list are non-notable anyway. Spiderone 08:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Here we go again with misleading comments in an AfD... Have you checked the notability of the people listed? All of the chairmen would be ok for starters, then of the directors, Seymour, Westwood, Fletcher, Harrison, D Hall should be easy, which only then leaves 13 of the 34 that I've not heard of. No strong feelings either way re the article, a list of directors probably is superfluous. I do however have strong feelings regarding the way some inaccurate statements are made as part of the Afd process, which could then be interpreted by others as fact 8lgm (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see this is just a list for the sake of having a list. See WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - a list of the club's chairmen is notable enough, but could easily be housed within the main article without significant bloat. A list of all board members is not needed, though - I have a complete list of Gillingham directors in one of my books and there must be at least a hundred, most of whom made no significant or lasting contribution to the club or football as a whole. Although this list attempts to counter this by including only long-serving or "otherwise important" (how do you quantify that?) directors, it's simply turned into a repository of everyone who's been on the board in the last decade or so...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete no need for a seperate article, any useful info can be merged into the main article. GiantSnowman 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Delete or merge to Main. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that most of the participants here have been blocked as sockpuppets, it would be impossible to fairly judge consensus. –Juliancolton |  00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Dil Jan Khan Dil Jan Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article doesn't meet the Wiki:Notability, as the rank is not anything but equal to Additional Secretary / Secretary of British Bureaucracy. There are hundreds of Inspector Generals of Police in Pakistan. In any case it is not something which shouldn't be hinted. Recommended for Strong Deletion --LineofWisdom (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Note to Admin - The AFD discussion header was missing causing it to be easily overlooked in going through the AFD lists. The duration of the AFD likely should be extended. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Looks like a bureaucrat with a job. Not much else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Weak delete the page's editors must make a better case for the notability of the subject. How significant were the positions held? Where are RS covering him? JJL (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete Why the deletion is delayed, when there is no chance at all to prove his notability. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Reply - The discussion is being help open because the nomination was malformed. There was no proper header for the nomination making it difficult for other editors to see it in the list of nominations. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Re-Reply - I was unaware to create it, However, the Header created by you has even taken a time. But no problem, I can wait for a decission. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - Apparently the nomination seems to be based on personal vendetta and family feud. The person who has made this nomination has only focused on two articles only. On the other hand this article has been on Knowledge (XXG) for more than two years and fulfills the criteria of being the head of an International Agency. I recommend a Keep. -- MARWAT  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Delete I don't know, how come you, Note to Closing Admin/Editor - Whatever the result is but the closing Administrator/Editor is requested to kindly look at the history of the user who nominated this article as well as the other article on Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. The point is that both the articles relate to two gentlemen who belong to the same clan of Marwat's and that almost all of his edits are related to insertions of his family member names in the parent article on Marwat which was created by me. So before finalizing this AFD vote, his true biased intentions may also be kept in mind as he was yesterday confirmed to have a sock which was banned by another admin. Thanks. -- MARWAT  11:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Note to Administrators Wether, I am a biased person or using sock, which i am not, still it wouldn't harm the wikipedia's policy regarding deletiong of this article. On one side, the ;"> MARWAT  is accusing me of inserting the familuy fellows, while on the other he is accusing me to be RayofWisom. Note that both, me and RayofWisom has voted against each other. My intentions couldn't be guessed by anyone else, as it is God only and myself who knows my intentions. But once again, wether I am a criminal or whatever, will it harm the policies of Knowledge (XXG) regarding this article? The article be deleted.--LineofWisdom (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, regardless of whether Marwat is correct in saying that this was nominated because of a vendetta, this article concerns a nonnotable person. Ultimately, it doesn't matter; if I nominate two articles about people in a group with each other, does that mean that I'm biassed against them? Even if it is meant to make a point, we can ignore that for now and delete it just as if this nomination were made by a neutral party. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Although, a personal relative of mine, Dil Jan Khan, has never remained on a notableposition. The position he held in UN is totally a bureacuratic position, where usually Grade-21 (equvalient to Major General) officers are inducted from member countries. --Marwat786 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Marwat786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note to Nyttend - I respect your opinion however, what would you say about a vote by Marwat786 who appears as another sock puppet of LineofWisdom as this account was created only today and solely for voting on these two pages of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. I can counter LineofWisdom by creating fake accounts, however, I don't believe in such absurdities. As an administrator it is your duty to keep an eye on such malicious elements. I would once gain repeat that what ever the result of this AFD, I would request to strike out all such fake votes and ban this user as well. -- MARWAT  12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Note to Nyttend I not only respect your comments but of each individual here. I am surfing Knowledge (XXG) since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? --Marwat786 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Comment This AFD has been mentioned at Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Comment I sympathize with the nominator's apparent rare form of dyslexia that prevents them from reading the first line of an article, and print it here for him and any others afflicted with this condition, possibly a Cherry-picking work-related ailment. "Dil Jan Khan (Urdu: دل جان خان) (born April, 1934) is a former President of International Narcotics Control Board of UNODC." Having had a job at the United Nations is a big deal worldwide, and establishes a degree of notability for this article. The notability of Dil Jan Khan's cop job is quite irrelevant in comparison. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) *Keep I laugh to hear the discussion. The Administrator are requested to search through the official website of the Government of Pakistan i.e www.pakistan.gov.pk . Dil Jan has remained Federal Secretary Interior, SAFRON and Narcotics Control. This is the highest rank a civil servant can aspire to reach. (Begukhan (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)) This user is a checkuser  Confirmed sock of Rayofwisom (talk · contribs). J.delanoyadds 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite a rambling AfD that is very unclear, there appears to be little that passes WP:MUSIC here. However, the article should be given time to expand.Black Kite 22:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Carmine Guida Carmine Guida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails notability requirements for musicians. Can't find independent sources. The albums listed are all on extremely minor labels, most being marketed through CDbaby (a specialist site for unsigned musicians). An award from the Belly Dancing society of New Jersey doesn't convey much in the way of notability. —Kww(talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Per nom. I tagged this for numerous issues, including notability. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This is a new page, and apparently has been 'attacked' by its subject - who did not create it. Guida has apparently had music used on national television in the USA, and is well known certainly in the NYC area. I'll try and add some more independant sources but I'm kind of strapped for time. Luminifer (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Also, CDBaby is not a site for unsigned musicians - even people as notable as 24-7 Spyz and Bumblefoot have their CDs on there - and other places as well. Having your CD on CDBaby doesn't really mean anything.. Luminifer (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) They do seem to have loosened their policies a bit about signed artists. I went looking for their old declaration on the topic, and it seems to have disappeared. Yes, having CDBaby as a part of your distribution doesn't make you non-notable, but having CDBaby as the only distribution channel for a CD goes a long way towards demonstrating non-notability.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I could see saying that - but many of his releases are also available on amazon (and presumably other places). I also did a search on google for 'instructional doumbek video', and Carmine Guida is actually the very first result - I don't know if you think that says something, but it's worth noting at least. Luminifer (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Unfortunately it is kinda difficult to find good sources which discuss the person. Here are some: - source of unknown authority; iShimmy - Guida is among the creators/staff of the website;... - Altenmann >t 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Wow, that's an interesting piece either way - thanks! Luminifer (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - is it looking a little more notable? I should point out that he's not only notable for his albums, but more for his instructions and his music being used on television, as well as his performances... Luminifer (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - there are two notable sources if you click the "news" link at the top of here, but I can't seem to get at them. Particularly this: Elgin's Martini Room to host drum-playing, belly dance party Belly up... $2.95 - Courier News - NewsBank - Jan 1, 2007 King, who teaches belly dancing on Tuesdays at The Centre of Elgin, will accompanied at the workshop by Carmine Guida, a nationally recognized Middle ... Luminifer (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Still don't see any solid reliable support here. CDBaby and Amazon comprise most of the references, and those aren't reliable sources for notability or significance; they're not really valid sources at all. The other refs appear awfully slim, and are either blogs or personal websites--without a single article devoted primarily to the subject in a major publication, it's hard to see how a claim can be made for notability. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What would be a valid source for album release information, in your opinion, if vendors are not? I believe they're certainly more reliable than any guide has proven to be, as they are one step closer to the material. (This has nothing to do with the delete nom, it's just a confusing issue, which I brought up on the talk page but no one is addressing) Luminifer (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The guidelines are at WP:MUSIC. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I'd like to point out that WP:MUSIC states This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. This doesn't wholly apply in this case, as Guida is more famous as an instructor and authority on middle eastern music and instruments (and thus his coming up in papers by ethnomusicologists - did you miss that one when you said "only blogs or personal websites"? it's easy to do as the cdbaby links do overpower things). As an aside, I actually disagree with allmusic being a good source - as many people do - but WP:MUSIC offers no real alternatives. Luminifer (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Amazon is a fine source for existence and release dates, but doesn't do much to validate notability.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) This seems quite circular, and I realize there's little point in my repeating this, but the subject's notability has not been established by reliable sources. The reference to the ethnomusicologist is a cite of a master's thesis. WP:MUSIC is indeed helpful, and relevant. Does not yet meet criteria. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) As I stated, I don't believe WP:MUSIC solely applies here, as he is more known as a teacher and authority than a maker of musical recordings - which WP:MUSIC very specifically says is who/what it applies to. I would suggest Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) is a better guide to follow for this, which states A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.. Luminifer (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) That's fine; the essential issue is the same. He doesn't yet appear to meet criteria under the guidelines you bold-faced, nor under those outlined at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), WP:ACADEMICS, or WP:CREATIVE. The same expectations re: sources applies, no matter which area of achievement is chosen. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I see that there are quite a few pieces of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. How is that not the case? Luminifer (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC) It is not unreasonable to question the reliability of the secondary sources: the article's second reference, to the Post Gazette article, is about the opening of a new coffee house, and it's hard to find mention of the subject in the article; As noted earlier, Ederer's article is a thesis paper; NJ Belly Dancing Org. is probably not a reliable source; similarly, one questions a very brief mention in 'I Shimmy' belly dancing magazine, as well as bellydancertrainer.com as a reliable source. In brief, most of the mentions are passing, or in sources that are not established journalistic entities. Such mention, coupled with the copious use of CDBaby and Amazon links, prove only that the subject is a working musician and teacher, not necessarily a significant or notable one--he may well be, but that's not been established. As footnote 4 to criteria for notability states: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. There is only one reference that is an article about the subject alone, and that comes from bellydancertrainer.com; my question to editors and the administrator who eventually decides the issue is whether these sources taken together constitute notability. If so, I have long misunderstood guidelines and requirements for inclusion, and I will stand corrected. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) As far as I've interpreted it, the guidelines for inclusion are intentionally vague and mention (several times) reaching concensus on notability, rather than a cold hard set of rules to follow. Luminifer (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) He has been covered in print as well, but I don't actually peruse print material. I will see what I can find. Luminifer (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) None of these sources are providing a direct and detailed examination of Carmine Guida, which is what is required by WP:RS. They are only passing mentions.—Kww(talk) 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The article under the bellydancetrainer.com is actually all about him (and it's not the only one) - it's even called "Catching up with Carmine Guida" - and it turns out to be similar material to a printed magazine sourced, which I have also now referenced. There are also reviews of CDs on which he appears. Luminifer (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) As an aside, can you quote for me where from WP:RS it states what you say - that it need to provide a "direct and detailed examination" of the subject? There have got to be tons of notable wikipedia article already in existance that fail that criterion - having a detail study about them. Luminifer (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) It's been changed to "must directly support". I'll dig through and find out when and why (and probably change it back).—Kww(talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Just lost track of my acronyms: WP:N.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Ah, you left out the key phrase at the end there. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Many of these sources do exactly that. Luminifer (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I've added a few more print references, one discussing him and one reviewing CD he was on, specifically praising the drum solos he performed on there. Luminifer (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) keep. Not Ringo Starr, but reasonably notable in his area of expertise. - Altenmann >t 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as per discussion - notability is established Laurelfan (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Note: user's first edit. Laurelfan, please know that unfortunately your vote will not be counted. Mukadderat (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - the current article shows reasonable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Growshop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Smart shop. Black Kite 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Growshop Growshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Growshop is a brand name and a Dutch term; there is no evidence of notability for the term in English common use apart from as a brand name and so this article fails wp:MADEUP. There are many articles in Google News using the word "Grow Shop" but this is invariably for "Grow Shop Limited", a company name or articles in Dutch rather than English (example search for most recent articles ). Ash (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Keep or merge to Smart shop, but the article requires cleanup for sure. This is the English language wikipedia, not the Knowledge (XXG) about English subjects. Sources in other languages and subjects from other language regions are perfectly acceptable. In addition, there definately are reliable english sources that use the word: The Guardian, Monday 17 March 2003 The Weekly Standard, 10/22/2007, Volume 013, Issue 06 --Reinoutr (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. The article says "A grow shop or growshop, it is an indoor store where a variety of crops and plants are cultivated". Considerable time spent searching on the internet suggests that in fact the substantial majority of uses of the expression "growshop" refer to either: Shops selling hydroponic equipment and supplies, and not cultivating plants on the premises, or Shops providing products relating to cannabis. Of the two citations given above by Reinoutr, the first one mentions the word growshop once, as a source of cannabis seed, not stating that a variety of (or indeed any) plants are cultivated there; the second citation refers to "grow" shops (with quotes) in reference to a law passed by the city of Rotterdam with a view to closing down premises selling illegal drugs. By no stretch of the imagination could this be regarded as substantial coverage, and it is also not at all clear that either of these citations refers to the meaning given in the defintion in the article. While the meaning given in the article may exist, I can find no evidence at all that it is common, or that there is any substantial coverage of the meaning in reliable sources. Even if such coverage could be found, it would not be helpful to have an article which gives the impression that that is the main meaning of the word, since it clearly isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The meaning as currently portrayed in the article, is indeed not fully accurate. That argues for correction and cleanup, however, not deletion. More substantial coverage and use of the word (albeit in dutch news reports) can be found here: Volkskrant, 03 december 2007 Het Parool, 12-06-09 NRC Handelsblad, 18 oktober 2008 The articles mentioned earlier were just to indicate that the word is actually used by english newspapers as well. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sally Boazman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Patent A7 - no importance or significance claimed. Black Kite 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Sally Boazman Sally Boazman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Notability, accuracy, lack of sources. Apparent request from subject per WP:BLPN#Sally Boazman Martin451 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was The article has been usefried so I can close this. . Tone 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete: No indication of notability. (NB: Article has already been deleted 4 times under the title "Frank and Mary’s Family Restaurant and Lounge" and once under the title "Frank and Mary’s Catfish House". ) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete G4 Recreation of deleted material. Apparently, nobody wants to have this as part of the article about Pittsboro, Indiana either, but in any event, not notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Comment My understanding is that "recreation of deleted material" refers to material that has failed an articles for deletion process, and to the best of my knowledge this has not. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) WP:NOT#WEBHOST explains it all. Mega Delete WeakWilled 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Comment I've tried to help this user to understand reliable sources and will take no !voting position here. However, I think this article is on the borderline. One problem is that there are no useful guidelines about the notability of individual restaurants, AFAIK; my instinct is to think that restaurants that have been in existence for quite a while are more possibly notable than others, and this one has been around for decades. The references provided might or might not bolster notability, depending on your attitude. There are no notable chefs associated with this restaurant. Do restaurant reviews count? I suppose it depends on how well-known the reviewer is, and the notability of the publication, and I'm not able to assess the relative notability of what's provided since I am not familiar with the publications. I have no idea how unusual/not unusual it is to have a catfish restaurant in the referenced area; in my area, it would be extraordinary and possibly notable (mainly because the catfish would have to be flown in from thousands of miles away). It's not clear if this is a prominent example of a restaurant exemplifying a notable regional cuisine. For all these grey areas, I'm willing to defer to someone with greater expertise, but I wanted to mention them to make sure this article received full consideration. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Comment I note also that Knowledge (XXG):Notability (restaurants) has not received the blessing of the community as a standard, but may be useful; if these criteria were applied here, I believe this article would fail the AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I now see the arguement here. I still vote delete though. Age doesn't indicate notability, and this is no exception. I have visited many restaraunts that are this old, or slightly younger. Age may help indicate notability, (such as if the food network were to do a 3 hour documentary on the oldest diner in North Carolina, but until there has been media coverage, it shouldn't be notable. My 2¥. WeakWilled 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Even in the limited abstracts that are shown in the linked references, you can see that this small restaurant in Indiana has been reviewed in the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Sun-Times. This would seem to make it meet the business notability guideline fairly handily. A perfect illustration of why consumer businesses will be inherently more notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to pay to check the Baltimore Sun piece, but I think it's identical to the Sun-Times one. If you look at the search results here, you'll see that several papers picked up that piece from Universal Press Syndicate in January–March 1991. It seems to be the only at-all-substantial news treatment of the place. Deor (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Looking at the abstracts for those two newspaper articles, they have the appearance of write-ups of a press release. It is very common for several newspapers to print the same or essentially the same syndicated item based on a press release. In fact ironically enough calling attention to these newspaper items has increased my feeling that the article should be deleted, on the principle that if this is the best that the article's defenders can come up with then there must really be little coverage. There is often disagreement about what constitutes "substantial" coverage, but these don't look like it to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. I originally took no position, merely raising a number of points for consideration (see above) but upon consideration I have to agree with the nominator, especially in the comment immediately above. The newspaper pieces do look rather uncritical and appear to have accepted the restaurant's own assertions wholesale. Thus there seem to be no reliable sources offering substantial coverage, and I think User:JamesBWatson has put his finger on the crux of the definition of substantial. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) delete as a topic entirely non-notable and unsuited for an encyclopedia, without even thinking about outside sources. one or even multiple restaurant reviews would not make this useful encyclopedic material. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I have found sufficient sources that allow this restaurant to pass WP:N. Here is a restaurant review written by Chicago Sun-Times from Jane and Michael Stern. After perusing through the contents of this article, I have determined that it is a review, not a republishing of a press release. The article says, "Waitresses work fast and are friendly ..." Although this is not a critical review, it proves that the reviewers tried out the restaurant. The second source I discovered was this article by Susan Guyett of The Indianapolis Star. This is a fully-available article, and a cursory look at it proves that it is a reliable review. Third, this article by David Newton of ESPN discusses Frank and Mary's in relation to Jeff Gordon, who always ate there "because there's really no other place to eat." Finally, I was able to obtain this Google Books entry, which provides a 3-page review for this restaurant. Although this is a travel guide, notability is clearly established because the other restaurants in this book receive on average a half-page review. These four sources are all in-depth reliable sources about the subject. If this were a BLP or a novel, notability would be fully established. Why would it be any different for a restaurant? It shouldn't be because this restaurant easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) That third one is hardly a substantial treatment of the restaurant. And the fourth one is a travel-guide entry for a different place, in Chicago. So what we have is one review (the Stern piece, whatever its origin) that was picked up by several papers and one review in a local paper. Deor (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The first two sources are sufficient to establish this restaurant's notability. Two in-depth sources are enough for a restaurant to pass WP:CORP. However, the presence of other sources that discuss this restaurant add even more to its notability. You argue that a review in a local paper is doesn't demonstrate notability. Where in the notability guidelines does it state that local sources are insufficient to establish notability? There is nothing wrong with local newspaper articles, as long as the newspapers have an editorial board and can qualify as a reliable source. Although the other two sources are not stellar, they do add to this restaurant's notability. Please explain why a travel book is an unreliable source or a source that doesn't establish notability. This travel book has information about a number of restaurants. However, it decided to devote 3 pages to this restaurant (whereas other restaurants receive only half a page). The book entry not only provides information about the restaurant's food, but it also provides significant history about it. This book is not a directory of all the restaurants in Chicago; instead, it provides information about restaurants that it deems notable. This is definitely not a passing mention, so it should not be disqualified. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Once again, those three pages in that travel guide are not about the restaurant that's the subject of this article, which is in Pittsboro, Indiana. They're about a completely different restaurant, which is in Chicago, Illinois. Clear now? Deor (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Quite true. Nonetheless, the remaining three reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area. And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. True, but Knowledge (XXG) is not made of paper. This argument is wrong because there is no limit to space. Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area. I don't know what you mean by "UP newswire pickup", but this article is not a press release. It is a reliable source that is from Gainesville, Florida, which is thousands of miles from Pittsboro. And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. There are two local articles (in addition to one article from a non-local newspaper) about this restaurant, so that should be sufficient to establish notability. Pittsboro, Indiana has a population of 2,567. With a town of this size, there is seldom more than one local newspaper. The fact that this restaurant has received two articles is a testament to its notability. Deleting an article with three reliable sources because two are local sources is unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) You obviously haven't been reading this AfD very closely. What "newswire pickup" means is that the same review, distributed by the Universal Press Syndicate, was printed in several papers around the same time. Note that the Chicago piece cited in the article is identical to the Gainesville piece you're making so much of now, which is identical to pieces published in Dallas, Lexington, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City papers. All of these appearances of the one review can't be considered separate sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And where are these "two local articles"? I see only one. Deor (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Is Universal Press Syndicate an unreliable source? No, so it should not be discounted. The two local articles are this one and this one. The first one is very in-depth, while the second one provides three paragraphs of information about this company. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It boils down to the breadth and depth of coverage. For me, this doesn't cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Note: The article's author has moved the article into his user space, leaving a cross-namespace redirect in mainspace, which I'm reluctant to have deleted until this AfD concludes, since doing so would break the links at the head of this page. The article has once before been userfied for him when it was deemed unsuitable for mainspace, and he moved it back (as the article we're considering here) without asking anyone whether it had become suitable. I'd normally view a move of this sort as an attempt to short-circuit the AfD; but the author is a youngster who hasn't shown much comprehension of WP policies or practices, and he perhaps didn't realize that the move wasn't a good idea. I recommend that if the conclusion here is for deletion, the page User:Sedna10387/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge be deleted, along with the redirect (and perhaps the various titles at which articles about the restaurant have been deleted should be salted to prevent re-creation). Deor (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. I wasn't going to !vote on this, since I have a certain amount of sympathy for the author, who I'm sure is of the opinion that I've been very mean to him during his time here, thwarting his efforts to write about aspects of his hometown that seem important to him. Nevertheless, I concur with the reasoning of the nominator and Accounting4Taste. Deor (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cuban packages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Cuban packages AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Cuban packages Cuban packages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article fails notability requirement. The only cuban packages that a google search shows, are the touristic ones. Not even by the Spanish name "bultos cubanos" shows any good source. In addition, none of the two sources that are currently used to reference the whole article can be accessed. Moreover, if this was a notable (and important) event in Chilean history it would certainly be available at least in the Spanish Knowledge (XXG). Likeminas (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: Determining notability about a subject from the Spanish speaking world by seeing whether there is an article in Spanish wikipedia is not necessarily reliable. Some time ago I began a page in English wp on the Chilean philosopher Roberto Torretti, a leading authority on the philosophy of science – but in the Spanish project there is still no page on Torretti. Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. This is a non-notable non-event. There are not even passing mentions of it in any book. There are no references to it in any accessible newspaper articles, either in Spanish or English. The current link is to a repost in a blog. Notmyrealname (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Further comment: The title of the article is also a problem. A Google search of "Cuban packages" or "bultos Cubanos" does not lead to any references to this topic. There is no evidence that this is a commonly known incident in any language. It also seems from the scant references available that there is no common description of these events. Again, these all point back to questions of notability.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Strong keep. An important event in history mentioned in many sources, including books such as Simon Collier, William F. Sater. A history of Chile, 1808-1994, Norman Friedman. The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War, Thomas C. Wright. Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution. Luis Napoles (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Can you add page numbers to these references where this is discussed? There are no results for "Cuban Packages" in these books using Google Scholar.Notmyrealname (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment These sources were just inserted by Luis Napoles and still need to be verified for accuracy. I will look into them and report backLikeminas (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comments: What could be done to deal with those who want to delete this page is present specific paragraphs from these books within the footnotes of the page. Whereby it can be easily determined by the readers in which context the term “Cuban packages” where used by the specific authors you have mentioned. Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is interesting, sourced and obviously notable. Searches in Google and on wikis are not a proof of anything.Biophys (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. A search for Norman Friedman and Cuban packages doesn’t yield any information about such an incident. Norman Friedman wrote about the cold war on a good vs evil premise that appeals to many radical Cuban exiles and he (or others mentioned) may have coined, figuratively used or paraphrased some event with the words 'Cuban packages'. But this would certainly not be the basis for a page in an encyclopaedia because it doesn’t constitute an incident per se. Given that most searches about this “Cuban packages” incident lead to Knowledge (XXG) and no other sources, a case for deleting it on the grounds that an encyclopaedia is not a primary source of information is reasonable enough. Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crips. Black Kite 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Eight Tray Gangster Crips Eight Tray Gangster Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Deleted last year via prod. Non-notable sub-set of a notable organization. The larger organization, the Crips is notable, but this set has a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. While the article calls them the most well known set in LA, there is a total of 1 gnews hit and that is about crimes in the Denver area. . No real shortage of ghits, but they are almost exclusively sites that won't pass WP:RS or mirrors of wikipedia. Of the first 100 returns, only 1 would pass RS and it simply mentioned them in a list of various sets. Fails WP:ORG. Can't really speedy since the article claims notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Well it seems you have no knowledge of the criteria being discussed so your call for deletion is moot in the eyes of logic. Furthermore, if you know anything about the Crips you would know that the two largest sets are the Rollin 60s and the 83 Gangsters -- try looking up the name 'Sanyika "Monster" Shakur' formerly 'Kody Scott' whom was close friends with "Tookie" Williams; the founder of the Crips. Really, all I see is an ignorant observer attempting to keep others ignorant of the same information. I think there are MUCH more important things that need to be attended to here at Knowledge (XXG). I mean really, just google "Eight Tray" or "Eight Tray Gangster". There are 19 million and 92 million results, respectively. There is even a movie called 'Eight Tray Gangster: The Making of a Crip' which is reviewed in the New York Times. Conclusively, your call for deletion has no basis and the reasoning for such a thing is actually horribly inaccurate -- as obviously seen with a single quick Google search. Psychedelia (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (-8 GMT) Actually, I do understand the criteria. Google hits don't demonstrate notability. Try reading WP:GOOGLE. As I said in the nom, out of the first 100, only 1 of the returns would pass WP:RS. I am aware of the movie and book. That makes Kody Scott notable (and he has an article), but that doesn't make the set itself notable. To put it in simpler terms, the American Red Cross is notable, but the (insert random county) Red Cross chapter is not notable. You need to read the applicable guidelines and policies. I know they are one of the largest sets, but that doesn't make them notable on their own. Nor will lecturing me about how little I know make it notable, especially when you are wrong. First, I know much more about the topic than you think and second, I know the applicable policies and that's why this article is nominated for delection. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Your version of reliable sources must be different from mine. Your totalitarian tactics, more obvious than your affiliation with the GOP, are clearly biased. From viewing your usertalk page and viewing your many other wiki accounts it seems you have a problem with information being added if YOU think it's not valuable. You're one person, remember this -- and your opinion should only be weighed as such. Is calling for deletion of an article that myself and several others, including members of the Crips whom I am affiliated with, find EXTREMELY NOTABLE really that important to you? I'm looking to contribute knowledge and you are trying to condemn it. Psychedelia (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (-8 GMT) If you are a Crip, maybe you should read WP:COI. But your response clearly shows you still haven't read WP:RS. I posted this question on the reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion and they are agreeing that the sites like you are using do not meet the requirements. (no opinion on streetgangs.com in particular, but similar sites) While you are at it, you might want to read WP:NPA. Your !vote is really nothing more than a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Nothing you've said here is based on policy. BTW, I have no other wiki accounts. Everything I've done is under this name. If you suspect otherwise, feel free to initiate a sockpuppet investigation and let them prove you wrong. I hve no fear of being proven to have been nothing but honest. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep or merge to Crips. There are a few more hits under the "correct" spelling, but nothing stellar that I could access. This DoJ press release commends officers for their work against one of the most notorious and violent street gangs within Los Angeles (1996). This Time article discusses an alleged member in depth, and mentions that they are estimated to have distributed hundreds of kilos of crack and cocaine powder worth well in excess of $10 million on the street. (1995). - 2/0 (cont.) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect. The Time article you refer to, about an individual, actually focuses mostly on that individuals criminal activities in other states, away from the gang. The AG memo really isn't that in-depth. No dispute that they exist and are violent. What is in dispute is their notability and the lack of significant coverage about the group itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Salgados Golf

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 14:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Salgados Golf Salgados Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Vale de Milho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Oceânico Laguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Oceânico Millennium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Oceânico Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Pine Cliffs Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Palmares Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Vale da Pinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Oceânico Pinhal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Pinheiros Altos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reads like an advertisement and entire content appears to have been cut-and-paste from another source, although that source does appear to be GNU Free Documentation License. Plastikspork ―Œ 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork ―Œ 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) delete all per nom; WP:NOTADVERTISING. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete all, every single one is a copyvio (Click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included" if WP is the only search result). If I understand copyright regulations properly it is sufficient if the content is placed on a single non-free page to make it a cp violation. As all of them are listed e.g. on www.toursforyou.pt, which is copyrighted, it cannot stay at WP. --Pgallert (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jesse Richards (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Jesse Richards AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Jesse Richards Articles for deletion/Jesse Richards (2nd nomination) Jesse Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This artist seems to lack any notability, other than an association with the Stuckists. Google searches turn up self-promotion but little else. Google news searches turn up college newspaper items. An earlier AFD closed in no consensus - artist's notability and profile does not appear to have increased since then. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 04:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Richards was a notable member of the Stuckism movement, and was included in some of their major shows, including The Stuckists Punk Victorian, which was a notable show at a national gallery. A Google search reveals articles about him as well as interviews in online magazines. Stuckism is considered to be notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards, as well as certain artists associated with the movement. I don't see other articles about Stuckist artists marked for deletion, who have been involved in many of the same projects as Richards, so I would certainly wonder about the reasons for Delicious carbuncle's decision for choosing this particular article. In my view, this article should not be deleted. Arturobandini (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Also I just noticed that the person that nominated the article for deletion the first time was banned from Knowledge (XXG) for vandalism, so I can't really consider the earlier AFD to be particularly relevant.Arturobandini (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Do any of the article actually cover this individual substantially? It seems that he is only mentioned in relation to a group of artists and an art movement. Perhaps he should be mentioned in that article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep There are quite enough references to justify an article, and good quality sources, particularly National Museums Liverpool: he has a dedicated biog entry in the Milner book (Milner, Frank (2004). The Stuckists Punk Victorian, p. 132. National Museums Liverpool, ISBN 1-902700-27-9). He played a significant part in the early promotion of an art movement, Stuckism, in the US. He was included in the major show representing the Stuckists at the Walker Art Gallery, one of only eight artist from outside the UK. (There are now over 200 Stuckist groups worldwide.) There is a full-length interview by Brian Sherwin. (NB Myartspace is a site with editorial oversight that uses the blog format for interviews.) Ty 10:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per evidence of notability. I'd like to see substantial coverage, but I think there's enough to justify an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:BIO Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, but obviously expand and source. O'Brien was a Member of the Irish House of Commons for both the Clare and Ennis constituencies as well as being a Privy Councillor, so that's WP:POLITICIAN sorted. I'll add a few sources if I get a chance tonight to at least establish notability, but there is definitely room for more than just a list of offices held and descendants produced. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Unfortunately I don't have any paper sources to hand, barring a few trivial mentions, so I didn't attempt to expand on trying to place him in a more useful and necessary historical context, but if the article does someday get expanded, O'Brien was rather prominent on the Grattan side of Grattan's Parliament. A lot of room for expansion here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as member of the Irish House of Commons and per WP:Politician ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - a privy councillor and Irish MP meets WP:POLITICIAN. john k (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep -- Irish MP & PC is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Easily meets Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as member of the Irish House of Commons and per WP:Politician. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 09:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, as per Phoe. john k (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep -- notable as an Irish MP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Meets Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines for political figures. Edward321 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jedi Academy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jedi. Redirect to Jedi for now. Eventually, it can me merged into another article if this shows as a better choice. Tone 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Jedi Academy Jedi Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Topic fails to establish notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. It is depicted in a game and several Expanded Universe novels -- but, in those instances, it is merely a plot device/setting; no one in the real world seems to care enough about it to offer the subject encyclopedic coverage. Search engine hits are mostly fan sites and game reviews. Wookieepedia offers multple entries on "Jedi Academy"s, but the focus in this article aligns most with their Jedi Praxeum article, which provides no additional "Behind the Scenes" pointers that might suggest third-party perspectives on the topic. The starwars.com Databank doesn't even have an entry on the topic (at least under Locations or Organizations). This slice of articlespace might better be served as a disambiguation page -- the current content is unencylopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to a list of locations in Star Wars article. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose merge - The entirety of the content is unencyclopedic, failing to meet WP:RS, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Subject is related to Star Wars makes it notable by default. A merge might be okay too. How would deleting the subject make the encyclopedia better? Use the Force EEMIV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Clarification I was half joking with this original statement, not that the article should be kept, but just about everything Star Wars related being notable. It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable (which is why I though tit would be okay to joke), as an investigation of sources and coverage reveals. Because it's been involved in so many games and books, sorting through all the coverage takes some time, but even as page to note all the notable uses of this feature of the Star Wars universe is an encyclopedic helpful and useful improvement. Deleting it would be damaging to the encyclopedia and would eliminate an encyclopedic topic that just needs some editing, trimming, expanding and improving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) "It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable"... I don't think that's clear to everyone. It's not clear to me that it has been the topic of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. What's clear to me is that it's not clear whether this subject is notable. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it. -GTBacchus 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Lots of notable subjects are discussed at AfD and lots of non-notable subjects. This one is clearly notable. If you're in doubt I suggest you peruse Google News and review the numerous cites and many highly notable manifestations of this subject in popular fiction, movies, and games, all of them discussed in oodles of reliable independent sources, a few of which I've gone ahead and added to the article. If you have any questions about the notability guideline it is based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and further details can be discerned by reviewing the policy page here wp:notability. I hope that helps clear the fog. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I checked there - what did your Google-fu find that I didn't? All I dug up was a children's "Jedi Academy Day" in the Watertown Daily times. There was also a game review that mentioned the Academy in the byline, but nowhere else. I did, however, find tips on how to lay a "Star Wars virgin." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, CoM. Still foggy. I've checked, and I'm not seeing it. Since it's "clearly notable" and "highly notable", I guess that just means I'm somehow incompetent to evaluate sources. Oh, well. As for the notability "policy", I helped write it; I know what it says. Thanks. I have yet to see a single source that's actually about the Jedi Academy. Where are the articles about that building? Where has someone made it the subject of their writing? -GTBacchus 06:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Notability is not inherited. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Sources are needed to establish notability, and as this has none... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Jedi. The Academy itself, as is stated above, is not covered reliably, and is only notable in the realm of Star Wars, and really only when concerning specific Jedi affairs, not the major interests of the public. A small portion of the material may be able to be incorporated there, but for the most part this should just stand as a redirect. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Fortunately there is a Star Wars architecture article, so if the subject isn't kept (as I've recommended above) it can be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC) A Jedi Academy was established in Surrey England, another in Romania. It's the setting and part of the name of a very popular and notable video game (that has its own article). I just wrote up a bunch of stuff with newslinks etc. But one of the links was on the spam blacklist so I lost it all. But there are plenty of sources to write a decent article. The massive coverage of the video game jsut means it requires a bit of digging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The video game and book series have their own articles -- and maybe, as I wrote above, Jedi Academy is better as a dab page to point toward those two products. However, as I explained in my nomination, even in these projects that contain the article's subject, the Jedi Academy is essentially just a window dressing locale for some fights and whatnot. There still is no evidence of significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) It's also been the setting for a series of notable books The Jedi Academy Trilogy and numerous comics. It's noted in this book on Medieval technology old and new. There are definitely enough sources to establish notability and to improve the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC) That source mentions the Academy in passing in a discussion of Dantoonie. It's not about the academy. -GTBacchus 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I added a bunch of sources. There are lots more. Feel free to add content from them and move them inline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The sources you added were not attached to any of the claims in the article, nor did you add any substance to the article -- the "sources" seem just to be to links where the subject is mentioned. If you've actually found evidence of the subject's notability -- real-people actually talking about this make-believe building -- then paraphrase or otherwise integrate the information; a "source" without information from it is just another External link, and should be labeled as such. Please revisit these "sources" and either cull information from them, or restore the links under the appropriate EL heading. --EEMIV (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I was able to find numerous reliable sources with substantial independent coverage which is the standard to meet notability. That the article needs work isn't in dispute. Now that notability is no longer in question, please withdraw this nomination so I can focus my energies on improving the article and others instead of discussing it. Your help in doing so would be greatly appreciated! Now that I've added the sources it's a lot easier to accomplish the improvements that are needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The sources in no way suggest significant coverage; notability remains unestablilshed -- either through inference from signs of significant coverage, or even a substantiated claim of notability in the article itself. This is simply an insignificant topic with no evidence it warrants coverage here; better treated at Wookieepedia, with a dab page or redirect to Jedi in its place. --EEMIV (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) CoM, I wouldn't say the notability is "no longer in question". There are clearly people questioning it; let's not assume they're convinced without convincing them. To me as well, it appears that those sources mention the academy in passing, and/or fail to provide more than trivial coverage. For example, I've just gone through the "Universalities" link. There's a one-liner entry defining the Academy, and a couple of passing mentions. Besides that, the search hits in that source are references to the computer game Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and to Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy. The game has its own article, which might serve as a good merge/redirect target. Saying "please withdraw this nomination" pretty much never works; you might as well know that ahead of time. If you focus your energies on improving the article now, that's how you prevent the deletion going through. Trying to win this discussion without first doing that just won't do you, or the Academy, any favors. We need sources that actually discuss the Academy itself, as a topic in its own right. Try stripping the article down to what is specifically verified in the sources, and see how much is left. Have a look at Category:Star Wars location lists. A good solution might be to create List of Star Wars buildings. Any building that is covered there in enough detail—from sources—could then be split off into its own article. That's often a good approach. -GTBacchus 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Well let's be clear, I did not create this article, and it's not a topic I'm wildly interested in, but in reviewing the AfD I am finding lots of sources. The nominator and those trying to delete it haven't added any. Some of the sources are more in depth than others, but this is clearly a very significant part of the Star Wars series that has been a focal point for games and a setting for storylines in various mediums. I'm certainly willing to consider a merge and willing to collaborate on improving the article, but if I'm the only one working on it, and I have to constantly defend the articl'es notability against deletion, that isn't very helpful or collaborative. I'm adding sources and with a little help from others we can fix the article or work out a proper merge through collegial discussion. This is a collaborative encyclopedia so nominating things for deletion and then expecting someone else to do all the work in fixing them isn't very helpful. And just in the one source you mention this subject is on six different pages. So while that isn't in itself substantial coverage it's six bits of good information and taken with other coverage it's what's required to build a good article on this subject. Fictional subjects are generally given in depth coverage in the New York Times, so the extent of coverage and discussion of this subject in various sources discussing it's influence in the real world where Jedi Academies have been started, as an example of religious modeling in fiction, and a fictional element in an extraordinarily popular game, as a setting for a series of books, and as a plot element in one of the most popular sci-fi universes of all times gives a very strong indication that it's important enough to be worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I think the point that I and others are trying to make is that we have looked and found no reliable sources showing notability. I fully believe EEMIV nominated this article in good faith for the appropriate reasons, not as a sneaky backhanded attempt to get someone to improve an article in his or her stead. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) CoM, perhaps we're talking past each other. I don't claim that nominating an article for deletion without trying to fix it is helpful. However, people do it, and you can't change that. It is a concrete fact that asking someone to withdraw the nomination and help build the article doesn't work. Don't do things that don't work; do things that work. Fixing the article works, and you don't have to defend it against deletion, ever. Just fix it up, in your own time, and if it gets deleted out from under you, ask me for a copy so you can develop it in your user space until it's ready. I will happily provide that on request. Expecting others to help you doesn't work, unless you're lucky. If luck doesn't come through, do something that works instead. You can't make people be what you wish they would be. That doesn't work. Do things that work. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You can't make people care about this article, but if you care about it, you might be able to save it. Arguing on this page won't get you there. Editing the article very well might. Why argue on this page, when you know that won't work? You do know that, don't you? If your goal is to feel righteous and wronged by a cruel world, then arguing here is a great way to do that. I can't imagine that's your goal, so what point in arguing here? There's almost never a case on Knowledge (XXG) where going more than 2 rounds of argument is a remotely good idea. Do things that are good ideas. Arguing doesn't work very well. Editing articles does. Creating a List of Star Wars buildings article is the solution that I think is most likely to work, so why not do it? I'll tell you why I don't do it: I don't care about this article. -GTBacchus 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jedi Temple

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jedi. Redirect to Jedi for now. Eventually, it can me merged into another article if this shows as a better choice. Tone 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Jedi Temple Jedi Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A very pretty make-believe building, but a topic that lacks evidence of notability established by significant coverage by multiple reliable, third-party sources (article currently lacks any citations whatsoever). "Behind the scenes" blurb at starwars.com is insufficient to establish notability (or even meet writing-about-fiction standards), and Wookieepedia coverage doesn't include a "Behind the Scenes" section (which usually is a good jumping off point for finding third-party coverage). Search engine hits are mostly fan sites and Jedi quasi-religion sites. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Comment The article as it stands right now is obviously insufficient as it lacks sources and citations, but I'm pretty sure there are reliable third party sources on this topic out there, and that the article could pretty easily be rewritten in a Knowledge (XXG)-friendly context placing less focus on the fiction. I'm gonna try to look for some sources before I vote on this.... — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to a list of locations in Star Wars article. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose merge - The entirety of the content is unencyclopedic, failing to meet WP:RS, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Keep The Jedi Temple is very notable. It should be mentioned that it is 1 km high, which is also very impressive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The last thing we want to do is create a precedent for notability based on size... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Are you suggesting that size doesn't matter? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) You know, for some reason they never believe me when I tell 'em. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Merge/Redirect to Jedi. I agree with the nomination - the Template doesn't have a sliver of notability outside of the realm. It is, however, pretty integral to the Jedi Order, which itself is rather verifiably notable. This content belongs at Jedi. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) Comment I would like to reiterate my statement that the Jedi Temple is very notable. A simple google news search shows that it is #3 on the Architect's Journal Star Wars Architecture top 10 . I would not be opposed to merging this and the academy into a more general article on the very notable subject of architecture in the Star Wars universe. I also think they are just fine as stand-alone subjects that have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Editors are welcome to make improvements, add citations, trim extraneous or unencyclopedic content, but I encourage all editors to think creatively about how to include subjects of interest like these instead of rushing to delete them. We are a pageless encyclopedia, so including notable elements of fiction does not distract or detract from coverage of non-fictional subjects. They can all exist peacefully and in harmony with one another and the force. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) As Hunter Kahn implied, it is hard to find sources for this given the sheer amount of fan-based material that doesn't count as reliable. The journal link is nice, but it hardly counts as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it's hard to imagine having an article with two or three times more content than the only source it has. Have you found any you'd like to add, because I've drawn a blank. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Well, that article does go into some detail on the building, and that's just based on its architectural notability (#3 mind you of all architectural features in the Star Wars universe!). There is also it's notability as a feature in the plots and storylines of numerous books, comics and movies. Here's another strong indication of notability, inclusion in Universalities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International, right next to Jeff Zucker and Jedi Starfighters, both of which have their own articles, and here's a book on matte painting that has an entire chapter on it . Truly the Jedi Temple is very notable and there are more than enough sources on it. The Jedi Academy I'm less sure about, so its content should maybe be merged to Jedi and other articles (like the new one on Architecture of Star Wars, but I don't think a stand-alone does any harm and there are probably sources out there. What kind of classes are done there? Is it an educational model for the future? How does it differ from our schools? What is it based on? How does it compare to Star Trek and other sci-fi futuristic depictions of academies? People have written on these subjects, whether it's available easily online I'm not so sure, but I think we should work to improve it rather than rush to delete it because it's not a good article yet. To do otherwise would be to side with the dark side. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC) If you think there's something "we" should do, your most pragmatic course of action is to just start doing it. Asking or expecting others to agree with you doesn't tend to work. Therefore, why spend your energy trying to convince people who are very, very unlikely to be convinced? Our time on Earth is limited; don't use yours knocking your head against a wall. That wall doesn't care about your head, and you can't make it care. What you can do is take a more pragmatic approach. Idealism on Knowledge (XXG) leads to grief, 10 times out of 10. You wanna roll those dice? Really? -GTBacchus 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The lexicography link is merely a dictionary definition; it hardly substantiates the subject's notability. The blurb of production information can easily be integrated into the article on TPM. All your rhetorical questions are invitations for original research -- no one in the real world cares enough about this topic to offer up such material (which is why no one's offered up any sort of evidence to suggest any significant third-party coverage of this subject: none exists). --EEMIV (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is a very notable part of an extremely notable franchise. The temple is covered in great detail in a number of the books and plays an important role in the movies. It is the scene of a pivotal part of one of the movies. Yes, I am a SW fan, so no need to point out that I'm part of the SW project. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I'm also a SW fan and part of the project. Can you point toward any significant *third-party* sources that discuss this subject in sufficient detail to substantiate your claim of notability? What text offers sufficient material from the real-world perspective to justify -- and substantiate -- an article on this subject? Being a setting for an important scene doesn't matter all that much -- that's the same reason we don't have article's on e.g. Willie Loman's home. --EEMIV (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I recommend creating an article: List of Star Wars buildings, parallel to other articles in Category:Star Wars location lists. Whatever content can be verified in reliable 3rd party sources can be included there, both for this topic, and for the related Jedi Academy, and for any other important buildings. Any building in that article that seems to have enough detailed information about it to split off as something more than a stub, can be split off when that becomes clear, leaving a {{main}} template at the list. -GTBacchus 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Merge/redirect somewhere... I'd prefer Coruscant, the planet the temple's located on, although GTBacchus's idea isn't bad either. I'm not convinced there's enough real-world notability for the temple itself to justify a separate article - the journal source is nice but isn't very long, and it's nothing that can't be covered in design notes for Coruscant, Architecture of Star Wars or the film articles. BryanG (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Methods of falling asleep

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is not in perfect shape. However, as several editors pointed out, it has the potential to evolve or the content to be merged with other related articles. So I am closing this as a keep. If the article does not change much in a couple of months, feel free to renominate it. Tone 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Methods of falling asleep Methods of falling asleep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Essay/how-to. This needn't have come to AfD but the Prod was removed on day of expiry with the comment "Remove proposed deletion tag as this could have saved Michael Jackson's life &c" Hairhorn (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This topic is highly notable and does not seem to be well addressed in our main article on sleep which seems quite poor. There is much work to be done here and deletion will not help in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Weak delete/Merge. While the information is potentially helpful, we should avoid becoming too guidebookish (on the other hand, we do have articles on lucid dreaming methods as well). The article about insomnia has a section about treatment, and the information could be merged there. There are plenty of other articles as well where this would fit, at least partially. The major problem is referencing, as this article is mostly unsourced. These sleeping knacks are something between tested facts and feasible folklore. In the event of merge or keep, it must be made sure that sources are found to support the claims. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC) keep but seriously rework - The dePROD reason was less than ideal, but IMO the subject is notable and distinctive from insomnia treatment. I view it distinctive in that people often want to induce sleep for reasons other than insomnia. However, the article needs serious work as it is currently rather HOWTOish and also quite incomplete. There are doubtlessly numerous other non-medical methods not covered here that should be dealt with. The article also could use a better title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This falls squarely under one of the ten things that Knowledge (XXG) is not (WP:NOT)-- "2.7 Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal", and that includes guides on how to fall asleep. The usual suggestions are in here-- warm bath, glass of milk, take sleeping pills. I'll have to say that watching a movie of someone yawning is a novel idea, but Knowledge (XXG) specifically forbids "how to" guides, and there's a good reason for that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (or vandalize). It's not too difficult to see the consequences of a practical joke in an article about suggestions for how to lose consciousness. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) weak delete i am of the opinion that this subject could be notable and encyclopedic, but here is treated more like a textbook or guide than an encyclopedic overview of information related to sleep research. the only source for this article currently cited is a loosely related clinical reference text that addresses diagnosis, cause, and treatment of a broad range of sleep disorders -- which appears to address the subject from a clinical rather than a "home remedies" perspective that the article currently embodies. as of right now, this article is not sufficiently sourced. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) This is not a good article review. Please comment on whether the article is capable of improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Addition of sources and improvement of the style is performed by ordinary editing, not by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with Niffweed17's opinion, and I don't believe that he or she is under an obligation to make further comments. I'll have to say that I have a real problem with comments on the order of "that's not relevant"; to me, I think that it's not much different than telling another person to shut up. While we tend to think of WP:CIVIL as applying only to profanity and direct personal attacks, it can also apply to "aggressive behaviour". It may not have been intended as a hostile comment, but that's how I would take it if it were directed to me. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) And how would you characterise your own comment? The point here is that User:Niffweed17's comments seem too focussed on the article as it is now rather than as it might be, e.g. "as of right now". This is an argument to avoid - see WP:RUBBISH - and so User:Niffweed17 is invited to address this point. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I characterize my own comment as an observation about civility. If it seems hostile, then I apologize for the tone. However it is a valid observation. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete the article is entirely inappropriate as it stands, including the title, which is a clear violation of "how to". to rescue, one would have to leave just the names of the few methods listed, rewrite entirely, excluding all howto language, and thenrename it. id say its easier to simply delete and start from scratch, esp. as the article as it stands is unacceptable. if it was just imperfect, or just incomplete, maybe a keep. Oh, and i just trimmed out language in the section on sleeping pills that was potentially dangerous to be here on wp, even for a few days. I think i was fully justified in doing this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Very close to WP:NOTHOWTO. No objection to verifiable information being merged to Insomnia. Location (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strongest possible keep Falling asleep is a major issue for a huge number of people. There is an entire range of pharmaceutical products and sleep aids addressing it. The subject is clearly notable, and concerns over content can be addressed by editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The article should be moved to sleep aids over the redirect as hypnotics (also called soporifics), a class of psychoactive drugs whose primary function is to induce sleep, are just one example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Ways of falling asleep != sophorics, one is a subset of the other. e.g. 'counting sheep' is a cliche method of falling asleep which has nothing to do with drugs.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Conditional Keep I think there's an article to be written here as this subject is of cultural significance and I beleive a reasonable history and examination could be done of it. But it needs a fair bit of re-working from where it is now. But deletion is not cleanup.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. We already have articles dealing with the subject matter, such as Sleep disorder. The title falls foul of 'HOWTO' and there is no content worth merging. Quantpole (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment, again the linked article deals primarily with a medical condition and medical treatments for it. I think an article could be made here on cultural concept of trying to get to sleep, e.g. the common cliche of counting sheep. I'm not quite sure how it could be constructed (and the current itteration certainly isn't it), but I think there is an article to be written here beyond just medical issues.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I agree that an article could be written on the 'cultural concept', but not with this content or this title. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Ok, so let's clean it up rather than deleting it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Because there is nothing salvageable from this. You could start writing an article right away at a better title, and like actually using sources and so on. There would be absolutely no loss in this being deleted. I am normally a voter on potential rather than current state, but with an article like this I see no point in trying to preserve anything. Quantpole (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC) This is not a vote and your opinion should be discounted as you don't seem to have read the article lately - all sections are now supported by sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you for educating me on AfD. You're right I hadn't relooked at the article when I was just replying. Having done so, my !vote (happier now?!) is the same. An article cobbled together from google searches from people who know nothing about the subject matter is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Quantpole (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Comment In fact it is a serious concern that Knowledge (XXG) redirects soporific to hypnotic, an article entirely about pharmaceutical drugs to make people fall asleep. This article should be moved to that title or merged with the existing article. Deleting is a horrible option that will maintain the status quo of drug pushing as the only alternative which doesn't reflect a balanced or encyclopedic approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep After some thought, I have to agree with Colonel Warden that the question is not whether this is a how-to guide, but whether it's a valid topic that has the potential to be something other than a how-to. Clearly, an article about the various methods that people have used for falling asleep is an encyclopedic topic. As with POV or lack of sourcing, the WP:NOTHOWTO objection is something that is curable. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep There have been plenty of books published, and studies done, on this subject. That makes it notable. Dream Focus 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep and expand. Scientists and doctors study this topic and write books about it all the time. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Insomnia#Treatment for insomnia. No content in need of merging. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Your comment seems inaccurate. For example, your proposed destination does not fully explain nor provide a citation for the rebound effect of alcohol, as this article does. And it has nothing to say of other sections such as hot milk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Per Kotiwalo, weak delete; that, or merge any valid information to insomnia or sleep and delete the rest. This really reads like a disorganized essay, and most of the points are unsourced. Does "yawning is contagious" even sound encyclopedic? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The Encyclopedia of sleep and dreaming says "yawning is contagious" and so, yes, it is encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Even with the addition of a few sources, it still reads like WP:HOWTO to me......maybe a whiff of WP:SYNTH. A bunch of 2-3 sentence sections doesn't really seem notable. Nor does re-stating the blatantly obvious to make it longer. How many people can honestly say that they never thought a dark, quiet environment is a help before reading this article? And no Col Warden, I don't care if some book calling itself an encyclopedia said it. It's still repeating the blatantly obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Strong keep or redirect/merge to sleep. VERY well referenced article, meets all notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) note to closing administrator the article has been completely rewritten since the nomination, with many additional sources. Ikip (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep. The difference between a howto (which we don't include) and a description of techniques (which we might) is subtle, and chiefly has to do with step-by-step instructions, wording, and the like. I don't have a strong opinion on exactly what should be in this article and what should be in Insomnia#Treatment for insomnia, but at least as of now there is relatively little overlap between the two articles, so if they are to be combined I'd merge rather than just claim one should supersede the other. I also echo the sentiment that the current revision is much improved from a week ago. For example, it is now well-referenced and much more well written. Kingdon (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Merge into Sleep which would benefit from improvement. I disagree that it should be merged into Insomnia: the article is laudibly attempting to conditions which may or not favour the induction of the sleep cycle (I note for example the section on Alcohol) and studies around "conditions which encourage/discourage 'good' sleep" are not limited to insomniacs. On a side note, I know AfD is not a forum for debating content but the section Methods_of_falling_asleep#Sleeping_Pills steps rather too close to the realms of medical advice as currently written. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Weak keep, with provisions. Those provisions being that the article be improved rather significantly, more so than it already has. Until It Sleeps 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dibi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Dibi Dibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Lack of substantial coverage in relliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Good faith searches turn up nothing to write an article with. Quantpole (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.