Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 31

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 30 October	1 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Small-l liberal

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

This article is an essay without any sources or references. In Australia and Canada where there are major Liberal parties some people use the term "small-l liberal" to be clear they are not referring to the party. However Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Since this article was nominated for deletion 5 1/2 years ago no one has added any sources or references. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are you adding Small-c conservative and Small-l libertarianism to this? Both have similar problems. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Answer: probably best to add them. Do you know if they can be nominated together or need to be nominated separately?

They can be nominated together; there are instructions about doing so at WP:AFD somewhere near the instructions on how to nominate individual articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete all 3, assuming someone includes the other 2. the refs for the small l libertarian article are nonnotable. unless someone can find references for notable use of these terms, all should be deleted, as content is unsourced essay writing (of course, the article sounds convincing, and may in fact be somewhat accurate, but thats not relevant here). In the US, the phrase "small d democrat" is used when talking about people who are not members of the democratic party but hold democracy valuable, not necessarily liberalism, conservatism, just the principle of democracy. i really dont know if this phrase has ever been properly documented either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now listed the other two. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Can't we just redirect to liberal? The redirect page already has the ability to point people towards the right page. Pirate 22:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It's not a very likely search term (and it shows up when you type in the search box), but I suppose it could come up, so a redirect might be ok too. Shadowjams (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete same reason as for small l libertarian. No good reason for a redirect. The only reason one might search for the full term is to see if there is an explicit article on "small f foo" rather than just "foo".--SPhilbrick T 02:17, 8 November 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 result was redirected to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes and warned Puccafan920 (talk · contribs) regarding removing AfD templates from articles. —KuyaBriBri 20:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Spot the Diff

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

Something incomprehensible about a special re-broadcast of certain episodes in which key frames were altered? Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 14:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong, speedy delete: I've already redirected it - it doesn't even scarcely meet WP:NOTABLE. Author clearly hasn't even bothered to read WP:FICTION guidelines. The Flash 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 23:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Karrigell

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

Unable to find a single reliable source covering the subject and thus fails notability guidelines of having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It should be noted that there are is some trivial coverage on gScholar. Odie5533 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: There are webhits, but just forum and sourgeforge stuff no reliable sources. I tried to find guidlines for software notability, but couldn't find anything. Pirate 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Merge/Redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing of Emptiness

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

All of the sources that I found either say that it is an upcoming album or that it will be released in 2008 (which it obviously wasn't) or 2009. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment If it's not independently notable wouldn't it make more sense to merge it to Demilich? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why merge it when there is no proof that it will ever be released? Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 19 October 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) 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete WP:Music says

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article seems reasonable. The band itself seems only barely notable. Pirate 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Demilich (band). At this point the most concrete source is a 2.5 year old bit in blabbermouth. It was originally supposed to be released in 2006 then 07 then 08 (read this from the bottom up). I'll put the relevant info on the band's page now. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Money (poem)

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

The entire article is a duplication of what is on the page of this poem in the article of the book, "High Windows". Snowman (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete At most put a line in Money (disambiguation)Pirate 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - article does not assert notability. This content would be more appropriately covered at Philip Larkin or High Windows. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: As per Drunken_Pirate. GreyWyvern 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dicky Alfred Roy

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

It's difficult to make sense of this article because most of it is incoherent, but what I have ascertained is: there is no evidence that I can find to support any of it; there is most likely a conflict of interest, shown here. Delete as either non-notable or even a hoax. I42 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Now also created as Dicky Alfred. I42 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I speedied Dicky Alfred, it was just a redirect to deleted page Pirate 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Networking information technology

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

Appears to be a repost of a college assignment: personal essay per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS, general description of several internet technologies already covered in other articles. MuffledThud (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. It's a poor school essay. Fences&Windows 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Information and communication technologies. --Lambiam 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Just an essay.--fetch comms 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, possible Redirect to Information and communication technologies if someone smart thinks "Networking information technology" is a valid encyclopedic term. With quotes google has 29,700 results for "Networking information technology". So it seems to not be a useful phrase Pirate 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No useful information. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Delete, essentially using Knowledge (XXG) as a web host for a non notable organization--do not userify, inappriate even there. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kelana seri angkasa

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

It isn't clear that there is anything notable about this scout troop, but the real problem is that this article seems to have been written as a shout-out by one member to all his friends in the troops. The article consists mostly of lists of names and photos of people who are of no interest to anyone outside the group, and repeated references to Friendster, Facebook, and MySpace. In fact, it looks like a Facebook group page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's very unlikely that this scouting organization is notable under WP:ORG. Anyone wishing to save this article should not only find independent reliable sources that discuss this group, but should also improve the writing, as the article appears to have been poorly translated into English from Malay. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Userfy while it may not be irredeemable, many edits have been made and it's still to assert any notability, let alone back that up with reliable sources Josh Parris 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, Everything Metropolitan90 said matches what I found. Pirate 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Numbers (website)

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing in here suggests multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage exist for this site, and that is required to have an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Seems to be a fairly referenced website but it could be cleaned up a tiny bit. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Both article and talk page give a few of independent sources that are reliable. The Template:Findsources has to fail considering the trivial name of the website. Querying for the numbers website is bound to fail (website by the numbers is as good as any to show what can be found). Try rather search, news, books and scholar (i.e. searching for The-Numbers.com) - this will multiply the numbers of hits more than tenfold, in the case of the book search even almost a hundredfold. JM.Beaubourg (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, with respect to the creator who has done good work, none of these sources appear to be actually about the site, they just namecheck it. That was why it was deleted last year, and it does not seem to have changed much. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This article makes two assertions of notability. (1) "Its data is used by many websites and associations." Two sources are given for this claim. The first is the Journal of Statistics Education, which namechecks the site once as a secondary source of data validation. The second is a directory page at Screen Australia, which lists The Numbers among a very large number of similar sites without suggesting Screen Australia in any way "uses" it. Therefore I feel the claim of notability is not made out. (2) Quantcast ranks the site as "43,267", the significance of which is not explained in the article but which in any case cannot possibly found a claim of notability (being 43,267th at anything seems inherently non-notable). Therefore the article makes no claim of notability backed by significant, independent reliable sources and fails both the presumption under WP:N and the defence of that presumption. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Was already deleted once, nothing appears to have changed with regards to notability or references. A blog, a review, some forum posts, and links to the site about the product do not establish notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a software encyclopedia. Vertigo Acid (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no wikipedia is an encyclopedia. definition of encyclopedia from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=encyclopedia

S: (n) encyclopedia, cyclopedia, encyclopaedia, cyclopaedia (a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty)

notice 'the ENTIRE RANGE of human knowledge'? for you moronic editors (all of you) that means EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING. so get the fuck off your high horses and maybe instead of deleting decent articles you mmmm fuck off?

The result was delete. JForget 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

InspIRCd

AfDs for this article:

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

This server software product is not independently notable. A s. arch on books.google.com reveals 620 sources, but looking through them, all but two of them are OCR mistakes of the word "inspired" or words in other languages. The two sources that contain a mention of this software are mere mentions which does not meet our general notability requirement for significant coverage. Searching on scholar.google.com with the word keyword "irc" added to the search reveals no references to this software. All of the references currently in the article are to the software developers own site, not independent. Knowledge (XXG) is not a software directory and we should not become a primary source of information about products. People who are interested in researching IRC server software most assuredly have better web-based resources than Knowledge (XXG). Miami33139 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Was already deleted once, nothing appears to have changed with regards to notability or references. A blog, a review, some forum posts, and links to the site about the product do not establish notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a software encyclopedia. Vertigo Acid (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jenny Quinn

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

Nothing in the article suggests she's notable. It seems she's been in WWE's training facility her entire "professional" career. iMatthew at 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete Whilst notability may be an issue there is adequate third party coverage. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Get Dumb 04:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even the sources in the article are either weak or contain nothing (that I can see at least). A search turns up less. Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, as she has not worked at the top level of her sport. Also seems to fail WP:ENT, as I couldn't find anything on her modeling career. Nikki♥311 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

José Bordonada Collazo

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

I've been unable to find any significant coverage of Collazo himself, excluding mentions in things about Menudo. He's also not "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles", if you trust the result of Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/One Call which deleted the only other band he seems to have been in. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete I agree with you and concur with the page being deleted. Other than having a MYSPACE page and web site I find zero other material.--98.203.69.237 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of fsignificant coverage by reliable sources, therefore notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was No consensus default to keep. Probably would be a good idea to begin a merger discussion on article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Status message (instant messaging)

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

fails WP:GNG and, well. honestly. What's next, an article on add contacts button? Perhaps I should split teacup into teacup handle and body of a teacup while I'm at it. Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep The nomination seems contradictory. On the one hand, it asserts that the topic is not notable (but provides no evidence). On the other hand, it seems to suggest that the topic is commonplace. In fact, the topic is easy to source as I have just demonstrated. Please see our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep It's certainly not the same as an "add contacts button" or a "teacup handle" article considering the growth of Facebook and Twitter. However, I'm not sure there are enough trustworthy sources one can actually cite to make a good article, but it seems OK for the time being.--fetch comms 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete but as Dictionary definition. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Status messages and the "ambient awareness" they generate have received some academic study. While many of the Google scholar results are passing references or patents, some go into greater depth (e.g., , ). seems to cover status information in some detail, and the work that cites it certainly does. discusses how Twitter developed out of status message culture. Some of the references in this master thesis seem useful. One idea would be to merge this with presence information, though that article is much more abstract. Whether these articles can be merged and, if not, how to divide up information between them is probably better handled on the article talk pages. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete and Merge as new section in presence information. I don't consider the presence information article to be too abstract, and the way the nom'd article is written, it could be merged in practically verbatim. GreyWyvern 23:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Nothing to merge, in fact. Only one such ship, according to the article. Could be merged somewhere else, not to the suggested list, because that's a list of lists. Tone 10:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kumari class starship

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

fails WP:GNG; any coverage is coverage of Star Trek which mentions the Kumari, not direct coverage of Kumari Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as plainly failing to meet the general Notability guideline. — pd_THOR | 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Merge to List of Star Trek ships. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Chuyev

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

Non-notable historian. I didn't speedy delete because the publications could theoretically be construed as an assertion of notability. Looking on Google, there's doesn't seem to be anything substantial in the 61 unique hits that don't mention Knowledge (XXG), and many of those are just non-explicit mirrors of Knowledge (XXG). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not historian (scholar) . Nor “served in the Russian army”…

Nor appeared at Russian "Военно-Исторический Журнал, № 1-2004" as appeared under p.13 in “Publications” section – index of mentioned magazine does not have such author nor article . Thanks94.179.247.41 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete sourcing and verifiability issues. Notability not established.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Alan Harris

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

Lack of coverage in reliable sources to show notability. --aktsu 05:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This article was written and sourced based on an apparent misunderstanding of WP:CITE. Most of the references are used to identify the web sites of organizations or institutions the subject is associated with, not to web pages that actually mention the subject or confirm the facts stated in the article. For example, the sentence "He is a graduate of National University and California State University" was cited to the main pages of the web sites of National University and California State University. Since the subject is not mentioned on those pages, such references tend only to indicate that National University (California) and California State University exist ... which was never in doubt in the first place. They don't contribute anything to the biography of this particular person. In fact, of the first 12 references found in the first three paragraphs of the article, I removed 11 of them because they did not mention the subject. I have seen citation patterns like this before, and it would be useful to put into a guideline somewhere that these are not the kind of citations we are looking for. However, such citations tend to be found primarily in the biographies of people who are non-notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete very close to a speedy a7, as none of this actually shows anything which might be thought of as notability for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete only primary sources, I can't find anything else. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RUON

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

Delete. Fails the criteria at WP:CLUB, no independent confirmation of notability. Originally a speedy, redirected by admin but undone by original author. WWGB (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Article is wholly promotional, and looks like it was copied from somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability, merge it to the University page and British Student Television page. see for related discussion. Sherzo (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Small-c conservative

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

This article is an essay without any sources or references. The term "small-c" is used to be clear the reference is not to the political party of that name. However Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Conservativism, if any refs can be found for this phrase being used, put one in the article with a sentence.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Must be a ton of sources on "small-c conservative"/"conservative with a small c"; if no one's got the energy to build an article out of them then redirect as it's a fairly self-explanatory term anyway. Declan Clam (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notable term even found in Wiktionary. Used commonly by Democrats as well Used in very current news articles and a slew more. 477 cites as phrase on googlebooks. 20 usages as phrase in the NYT, including on 31 Oct 2009. Thus showing common usage of the term in its entirety, acceptance of the term by major media, including the NYT. Notability similary is shown by the uses given. Not a close call by a mile, and not mergeable as such either. Collect (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep This is a notable distinction and so it is easy to add sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorskr Tunguh

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

Someone (probably the creator) added this conlang to the List of constructed languages article, but this appears to be extremely non-notable. It gets only five Google hits, including the Knowledge (XXG) page. There are no hits on Google Books. Not only have I never heard of it despite my interest in conlanging, but there are no mentions of it on any of the main conlanging community sites (such as Langmaker or Janko Gorenc's list), nor is there any evidence that it is discussed in the conlanging community to the extent, say, Teonaht, or even Rokbeigalmki, is. There are no appearances whatsoever in print form (journals, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, books) nor could my search find any evidence of audio or video interviews on this language. The article cites an interview, but the interview is in a blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Being that someone (not the creator I might add!) I can honestly assure you that the article was created in good faith, although I see what you mean about the blog. I did get a copy of the materials before I wrote the article to assure myself it was genuine first, and it seems a very credible attempt to do what it says. As for not being mentioned in the conlang community, that really isn't where its focus seems to lie, although it actually IS on Janko Gorenc's list (http://janko.gorenc.googlepages.com/constructed_languages - located under "Y") and from what I can see Langmaker hasn't been online for a while now. YT is quite new also it would seem. Maybe we should give this one a little bit of leeway, timewise, to pick up interest? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpip (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment This article reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article (with the exception of the final section of prose). I've not personally looked for sources yet (hence this is tagged as a comment not a recommendation), but my gut feeling based on the comments above and the article is that this isn't notable, but has the potential to be so in the future (but note WP:CRYSTAL). Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Based on what I can see, I have to agree with Wiwaxia: as for now, the subject surely won't stand the Notability and the Verifiability trial. Yet, the subject is interesting. In this case, I would say it is sad that "being interesting" is not a reason to keep and article. Thryduulf is right, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good read. Besides, this particular projects seem to be one of the very few of its kind. Obviously, an article about this subject is not warranted at the moment, but I wouldn't like to see this text disappear forever. Therefore I would suggest to transfer it to a safe place, like http://conlang.wikia.com/ . —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think IJzeren Jan has made some very sensible and salient observations, and has put his finger on the nub of the matter when he says "this particular project seems to be one of the very few of its kind" exactly the reason I put it in the List of Constructed Languages article. I'd be quite happy for this article to find a place in the suggested conlang wikia, but firstly, a few points that I feel must be made:

1. There seems to be a semantic problem here, i.e. in the difference between the terms "notable" and "widely noted". They do not mean the same thing. Notable simply means marked by distinction, remarkability or particularity. The article itself is quite explicit about this when it says that the list is of..."languages with some notability, either historically or because of unusual characteristics". I would argue that a language constructed to supposedly reinvent a lost cultural heritage is notably unusual.

2. I have taken the point about the tone of the article and altered it accordingly.

3. I don't think we should take its success in the con-lang community as any sign of its success overall, as its focus obviously lies elsewhere, i.e. as a device of a common cultural region. It would be like saying that Kofi Annan's term as Secretary General of the UN was a failure because he happens to cook but isn't well known for it! Whether the con-lang community takes an interest or not is irrelevant, although as I have said, YT has made it into Janko Gorenc's list.

4. My interest lies in this topic because of its relevance to Yorkshire, a relevance which would make it of interest of other people in the region too (a region of 5 million people I might add!).

Any further thoughts? Bkpip (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Notability" is a bit of a term-of-art here on Knowledge (XXG), and its meaning is something quite close to "widely noted". Under our rules, we cannot look at a topic and say "hey, this is a good idea, and very interesting; we should have an article on it"; we are restricted to looking at third-party sources and determining if they have covered the topic in enough detail to construct a comprehensive article. Powers 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one shall not be rushing to contest Knowledge (XXG)'s reappropriation of the English language on this occasion, lol. However, that little nugget doesn't change the fact that the list under discussion specified "unusual characteristics" as one of the qualifications for being notable. Furthermore, please don't confuse the list with the article. I was using the afore-mentioned phrase to challenge an attack on YT's inclusion on the List of Constructed Languages, not upon the article itself, if you read carefully. Bkpip (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have copied this article to FrathWiki. If the result is delete, perhaps we could leave a stub that points there? Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with that if everyone else is.Bkpip (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete for lack of sources. The page cites none, and Google finds only two mentions outside Knowledge (XXG), one on a blog and one a letter to the Yorkshire Post mentioning the language in passing. Neither is a reliable source. Cnilep (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:N or WP:V. When searching for sources, I get the same results as Cnilep. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Lack of independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of bad endings in games

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

It's a list of something that there isn't even an article on. Pirate 21:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment at first this idea sounded wholly subjective to me, but i didnt realize that games could truly "end" badly, rather than the main character just dying prematurely (to me that means you didnt reach the end of the game). if this concept truly exists, which it seems to, a small article here makes sense, but the list of bad endings, beyond a few highly notable examples (which are...?), must be deleted as nonnotable. i can only see specific bad endings mentioned here that have been talked about outside the world of fandom, say a star wars, super mario or other major game bad ending which got media attention. being unrefed is a huge problem. i checked, some of the game articles linked to do include bad outcomes in plot summaries, but again, that would be appropriate only in the game article unless the ending was notable (famous, weird, controversial, used in a movie adaption, lindsay lohan personally comes to your door to slap you, etc).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concept, but I've no references to there being a term coined before hand, so at best this is original research. At worst, it would be in the same category as "list of beds providing inadequate lumbar support". Pirate 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a list is overly broad, and their is no set criteria for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchcomms (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This is trivial listcruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Too much cruft, no references at all. Warrah (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete, its an overly broad topic as stated by above users. Whilst normally I would avoid the "unmaintainable" and "unusable" list arguments, in this case I cannot see how it will be beneficial as it will be a list of examples with lots of original research, as there will be very few sources to cover the list. --Taelus (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Obvious delete - Cruft. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Gamecruft. This article also has zero verifiability since this will always be based on people's opinion, in turn making it original research. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Opinion/original research + gamecruft. --Pboyd04 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete POV by definition -Drdisque (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. DGG's analysis is the prevailing argument here. Tone 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando Zapata Tamayo

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Pe4r WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Cocytus 01:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. This article actually lists multiple events supporting notability, so the BLP1E argument is plainly invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW as well as the length and depth of news coverage from above link making 1E not an issue. Hobit (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep, per DGG, multiple independent sources, including Amnesty International's coverage, meets WP:BIO threshold for inclusion. Dreadstar ☥ 08:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Augusto Villareal Acosta

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

weak Keep per DGG/HW. this one has minimal news sources and would perhaps do well with a merge to an article on Cuban political prisoners. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Enrique Silva

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT.
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep see my 20 other !votes on basically the same topic. Getting tired. Hobit (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Luis Milán Fernández

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep SEE MY GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

José Miguel Martínez Hernández

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fidel Suárez Cruz

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Leonel Grave de Peralta

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis of related articles. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. The subject's involvement in the library movement has particular significance in terms of establishing notability, because that movement received extensive coverage in the US and international press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per HW. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Luis González Tanquero

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. In this case, the article actually cites public commentary on the case by a US President (admittedly a lousy President, but ...), which is a very strong indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Diosdado González Marrero

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG/HW. Hobit (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep DGG explains that every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP. . . I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep. The article's subject clearly goes beyond BLP1E as the award & citation indicate. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo González Alfonso

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep the award (and coverage of the award the the arrest, two events) makes him notable. The article as it stands is just fine. Hobit (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep agree with Hobit above. As well 612 returns on Google news archives seems notable enough. I will be adding content in the next few days.(olive (talk))
Strongest possible Keep. Multiple notable awards. The nominator's comments on the article talk page indicate that the article subject is notable for multiple events ("this guy was a troublemaker that had been arrested in many occasions before this one"), and that the subject was notable under standard notability criteria ("he was awarded many prizes and recognition"), raising very serious questions about the good faith nature of this and related nominations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, multiple independent sources establish notability beyond the one event per awards and References sections. Dreadstar ☥ 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Díaz Sánchez

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis on related articles. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. The article cites multiple events upporting notability, making the BLP1E rationale plainly invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per news sources (found in above link) that cover a wide variety of sources and years making 1E look like a bad match. Also per DGG (in the very similar noms by the same editor) and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Luis Enrique Ferrer García

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
KEEP SEE MY GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by organizations like Juman Rights First, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Alfredo Felipe Fuentes

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - One event Cynof Gavuf 07:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Reporters Without Borders, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG (elsewhere) and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The news search above shows that WP:N is easily met and 1E isn't an issue given the number of years that coverage has been building. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Carmelo Díaz Fernández

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete I checked this one out. While he is mentioned in numerous articles that seem to originate from CubaNet (a reliable source used by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Miami Herald ), they are not very detailed regarding him and all relate back to the Black Spring crackdown. An article on him is in the service of a great cause, but WP:BLP1E applies. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would just like to notice that Knowledge (XXG) article are not supposed to serve a cause (other than education, of course). --Damiens.rf 18:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Why of course. What Knowledge (XXG)'s audience deserves is simply educational coverage. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG. News sources look good. Note, he isn't a prisoner any longer. Hobit (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcelo Cano Rodríguez

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per DGG and HW (elsewhere for same basic topic...) Hobit (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mijail Bárzaga

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I highly disagree that every person mentioned by amnesty gets an article. International does not mean something special. Cynof Gavuf 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Cocytus 02:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep news sources show coverage is broad and ongoing over many years. Not treated as one event in the press, so shouldn't be here. Hobit (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Aguiar Ramírez

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - President of a national political party, however small, establishes notability. Grsz 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is surely mistaken. The Partido Ortodoxo was founded in 1947, and Sr. Ramírez was born in 1946 according to this source (58 years old in an article from 2004). --Damiens.rf 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he was the founder of the party, just its current president. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he is the founder of the unofficial Partido Ortodoxo de Cuba (1999). It's not the Partido Ortodoxo (1947–1952), but a tiny, hardly notable organisation. Skarebo (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:1E, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Skarebo (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Redirect to the notable event does make sense.) Skarebo (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. Additionally the president of a national party is relevant--whether or not the founder--and thus BLP 1E does not even apply at all. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. The party of which he is president of appears to be non-notable. Cocytus 02:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. And the article appears to support multiple bases for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep sources from above news link provide plenty of information, meets WP:N and exists for many years making this not 1E. Plus DGG has a good point actually. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Omar Pernet Hernández

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT.
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International or PEN, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG and HW. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Pacheco Avila

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Not very much as far as references go. WP:BLP1E comes into play, as noted by nom. Not all those arrested during this event are inherently notable. Grsz 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Cocytus 02:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International and by Reporters Without Borders, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep per broad news coverage (link above) over many years negating 1E issues. Plus per DGG/HW. Hobit (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Connel Fullenkamp

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

Single-digit h-index suggests that he is not notable per WP:PROF. Was prodded and deprodded in June 2009. Couldn't find evidence that would point towards notability under the general notability guideline. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not notable under WP PROF. More precisely than just an h index (a person could have an h index of 3 with 2 papers with 300 citations each, and one of 3), he has only 3 peer-reviewed paper in scopus, with counts 8, 6, and 1 This is not surprising since he is only Associate Professor--I corrected the article in this regard. In my experience, saying some is a "professor at X" when the title is less than that indicates either an unsophisticated student, or a attempt of puffery. When I see the wording, I always check for the actual title--because it might really be full Professor. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. GS cites are 297, 37, 33, 32, 23, 16 with h index = 6, rather larger than Scopus as expected. Still does not make WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC).
Delete as original prodder. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Zayas

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

Non-notable biography. No real reliable sources listed and none found outside of Zoominfo and Facebook accounts. Only real TV role listed is minor. TN X Man 20:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. He does not appear to meet WP:BIO; roles like 'h.s. kid' and 'cholo #1' are not accomplishments that would cause Knowledge (XXG) to need an article about this person. at least it wasn't Cholo #5... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:BIO. Ultimately seems to violate WP:V. --Kinu /_c 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete might be as notable as a no name nurse on House.. Not notable no reliable source. IMDB shows six short sets. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep as withdrawn by nominator

Nothnegal

AfDs for this article:

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

Keep: Withdrawing as nominator after sources for the article appear by kind editors below. I don't mind having to strike my comments is an article got a major overhaul as a result :) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, ~~I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability,~~ and no Knowledge (XXG) articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

*Comment: This article only links to others within Knowledge (XXG) that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article has been deleted by AfD before, but since it has been a fair amount of time I didn't want to tag it as merely a recreation. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP — i went through wikipedia's: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

and according to its:

(6th criteria (which Nothnegal passes clearly): (nothnegal do have:) two or more independently notable musicians, (both these musicians are:) members of two or more independently notable ensembles.

and they do pass the 1st, 2nd criterias as well.

(1st criteria: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable)

nothnegal's news have been covered on places like blabbermouth.net (Blabbermouth.net, described by the London Free Press as a "reliable industry and fan site", is widely recognized as an authority on heavy metal and hard rock. It has been cited as a source by the London Free Press, New Musical Express, MTV.com the Toronto Sun, the Baltic News Service, the St. Petersburg Times, News.com.au, and OC Weekly. -- source: blabbermouth.net and more like Metal Storm (webzine) to name some:
1- http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=113435
2- http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129636
3- http://www.metalstorm.ee/events/news_comments.php?news_id=8073
4- http://www.bravewords.com/news/105615

(2nd criteria: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country)

noted festival caos emergente's website and myspace confirms that Nothnegal performed on their festival in Portugal and according to blabbermouth.net, Nothnegal was also part of another festival that was held in Romania which also had notable bands in its lineup.
1- http://www.caos-emergente.com (refer to 'artists 2009' page)
2- http://www.myspace.com/caosemergente
3- http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=78857058&blogId=506598688 (concert poster)
4 - http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=126386
5 - http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=120217

--Mv head (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep — blabbermouth.net alone have plenty of articles covering Nothnegal: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=nothnegal&x=0&y=0

A news article of Nothnegal is on blabbermouth.net's front page as we speak!

SPEEDY KEEP — I strongly support to keep this article as this is about a band that have recognized notable musicians in their lineup, have got coverage from reliable media sources like blabbermouth.net and also have performed in international concerts or tours which have had coverage from reliable media. --Ntxdr (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

*Waiting: blabbermouth is down? At least I can't connect to the front page. Listed there with side articles is good, but front page to that high-traffic a site? I'll submit for Admin to close as keep per my withdrawing once it's back up. ...Thanks for finding all the info though, really. I'd rather know an article gets improved than dies. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

blabbermouth is not down, try http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/index.aspx thats the front page. Nothnegal's article is still there on the front page news. check that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.104.24.239 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright! -- this is more than enough. If they'll get a news post to the front page, no issues with any article posted there since this proves it obviously isn't a one-time media blurb. Going to strike my above comments and close for Keep as withdrawn. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Julia Trops

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

Autobiography. Vanity page with little to support notability, aside from local involvement in the arts. Few or no reliable sources offered. JNW (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Article was created by its subject, so clear case of WP:COI. The whole article is also 100% pure WP:VSCA with no references to WP:ARTIST. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability in the Knowledge (XXG) sense of it. She's quoted in this news article. And she;s made a career of art as evidenced by a list of local exhibitions, including places like this. But this falls short of Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria for artists. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). Prolog (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalmah

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

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Knowledge (XXG) articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This article only links to others within Knowledge (XXG) that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping: With new sources found, withdrawing article. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP —Kalmah is signed under a major record label, performed internationally, with noted musicians, records produced by well known producers. i'm sure thats enough for the band to be noted. i have included reference links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep — I definitely contest this deletion request. Following stringent Wiki rules, yes, this article has problems, but this was already indicated by the "sources" and "unreferenced" tags. An actual AfD I don't think is required at all; I almost feel like, since you've discovered your new hobby, that you're just trying to find articles to delete. I would recommend being more constructive and tagging articles that are blatant abuses of Knowledge (XXG). Kalmah is a band that doesn't have the widespread familiarity of countless magazine interviews, but some *do* exist and are readily available online and the rest of us, as contributors, need to take the time to read and cite them. Aside from the article not being 100% verifiable due to Knowledge (XXG)'s rules against primary sources, the article is fine as a prototypical encyclopedic reference to the band. This page has existed for five years without having any PROD tags or a discussion of deletion until now. When I get more time in my life, I will personally re-write the entire article with verifiable third-party sources. Kerαunoςcopia 08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't remotely appreciate the insult regarding my editing activities on Knowledge (XXG), a full re-write would be more than welcome, and I'm sure you already know that just because an article has existed for however long isn't immunity from anything. Fortunately, as I read below it seems that's this is no longer a concern. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see on your user page you practice civility and to be honest: I think I could practice a little of it on my end, along with maybe some DGAFism. I'm probably too attached to some of these articles and I'd like to consider myself among one of the contributors who wants what's best for Knowledge (XXG). That would include treating others with respect when they obviously have no malicious intent. So I will apologize. I should have spent a little more time digging up more reasons why the article shouldn't be deleted and less of being a jerk. I'll admit at first I thought you were a vandal... probably should've looked into your reasonings a little bit further. Kerαunoςcopia 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Besides what has already been mentioned, the band's most recent album went to #17 on the Finnish album chart. As for sources, Blabbermouth.net alone has plenty of coverage on the band. Prolog (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, an album chart works for me! Thanks for posting it. Will request a close as keep. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

CA Shiksha

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

In my opinion, this web site does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment or changes. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete' seems to be some non notable website advertising themselves (I nominated this for speedy deletion)--NotedGrant Talk 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

see this : http://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=5118&c_id=240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeiteasy123 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) — Takeiteasy123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy Delete A7 web content with no claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. One two three... 22:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blas Giraldo Reyes Rodríguez

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - WP:BLP1E Grsz 15:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. One two three... 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Arnaldo Ramos Lauzerique

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. One two three... 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Omar Rodríguez Saludes

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Reporters Without Borders, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pioneers of Love

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

Non-notable group. Violates WP:BAND as no coverage or chart recognition. Delete. Athe Weatherman 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the line "Pioneers of Love is currently working on material for their debut album." says it all... clearly fails WP:BAND... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Liberal Party of Australia. Content can also be merged there if necessary. JForget 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Liberals

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

Fails notability, is not a political party recognised by an electoral commission (federal, state, local) or incorporated body (per ASIC search - which finds all the state Liberal parties and even liberals for forests.). In fact, it seems to simply be a local campaign slogan used by members of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division), which is incorporated and to which all of the members belong, in the Hunter Region. Orderinchaos 15:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 15:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Locally registered parties are not notable, and this article fails even that test. Frickeg (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete This local branch of the NSW Liberal Party doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete In July 2009 I proposed that this article be merged to Liberal Party of Australia. However the discussion revealed that there was little interest in doing so and there was an indication that this article may fail WP:ORG. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, registered political parties are notable, local branches are not. Possibly redirect to Liberal Party of Australia as a plausible search term. Lankiveil 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC).
Delete branches are not notable, nothing happens except a stack every now and then YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete registered political parties are notable, most local branches however are not. Possibly redirect to the Liberal Party of Australia. Watchover (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Burnley Belvedere F.C.

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

Amateur clubs are generally not considered notable under the notability guidelines. Please see: Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Football/Notability and WP:ORG. WP:Prod removed by author, citing that other teams have pages that are similar/worse Cocytus 15:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I can't find anything to give this team notability. And to the author: just because a team's a part-time one doesn't mean that they're not non-notable. Otherwise teams like Histon F.C. or Queen's Park F.C. - both of whom are part-timers - wouldn't be notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I should have phrased it better. I meant that they hadn't really reached a notable level of football, i.e. League One or League Two. Something along those lines. Best, Cocytus 16:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - general rule of the thumb at the WP:FOOTY project is that a team must have reached a level at which they are eligible to enter one of the FA's national cup competitions, which amounts to level 10 or higher of the English football league system. This club is a long long way below that level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete in line with Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Football/Notability. The article makes no case for notability - it would be better to mention the club in the Sport section of the Burnley article. There is a Non-League football article, but there are far too many examples to start listing any there. East Lancashire Football League is currently redlinked but could be another place to mention the team. There are 39 East Lancs league teams listed at Soccer Weekend. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - nono-notable team. Giant Snowman 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - not a notable team Steve-Ho (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn per reference added (which later disappeared, but reinserting it would not be a problem). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -- timed 03:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Olex2

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

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -- timed 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Per these Google Scholar results: , , and . There are more of these in this search. Joe Chill (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Joe above, has some notbility and plenty of search results, on both scholar and web searches. Athe Weatherman 14:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep I have added a source that ought to be sufficient -- article could use a good copy-edit though. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Marked as a copyvio. Tone 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Vector Sensor

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

This article looks suspiciously like promotion of K. T. Wong's academic publications, complete with an external link to his website. The tone is more like original research than encyclopedia article, and it is not documented how the long list of references is supposed to demonstrate notability of the concept. A previous instance of the article, Electromagnetic vector sensor, was speedily deleted as blatant advertisement, but I would like to get the community's opinions on this issue. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom here. Pretty clear WP:OR, reads just like a research paper of dubious origin anyway. Athe Weatherman 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep This article is not written at an appropriate level for Knowledge (XXG), but the topic is covered in hundreds of academic publications, and the article provides a bunch of relevant references. Could undoubtedly be improved a lot but I don't feel that it needs to be deleted. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. Search for "Electromagnetic Vector Sensor" (exact phrase) on Web of Science returns 18 journal articles from 1995 to 2009. WoS is a dedicated engine and having more than a few journal article hits there suggests notability. The article is poorly formatted, but that is usual for WP newcomers. WP:OR - doesn't seem to me; Cleanup needed - yes; promotion of Wong - yes, but the cleanup will sort this out by chopping his refs. I don't see enough reasons for deletion. A word of a specialist in this area would be helpful. Who would be willing to cleanup is a good question. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks like the author paid attention to the constructive criticism: . A number of the references to his own articles as well as the external link to his website are now gone. Favonian (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete - blatant copyvio: article is a straight paste from IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems April 2001, a scan of which can be downloaded from http://www.eie.polyu.edu.hk/~enktwong/ktw/WongKT_AEST0401.pdf, copyrighted article by K. T. Wong. MuffledThud (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Millom Shopping

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

Article about a list of shopping venues in the town of Millom. IP-address user (possibly the author) removed the prod I placed on it, with the most likely explanation that It is not a shopping or travel guide; and does not intend to recommend any particular shop. It is a simple list of shops along with their locations and outline information to give an indication of the type of wares available - local knowledge shared to the world. Regardless of (and probably in fact of) this, the article fails WP:NOTDIR. TheLetterM (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - reads as a pure business directory. Article also fails to mention in which country the town may be found (yeah, I know there's a wikilink but WTF?). Eddie.willers (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIR. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. December21st2012Freak 16:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Very clear cut copy of policy listed above. Athe Weatherman 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sefu Sun Da Fa

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

Notability issues have been noted before, but did not lead to an AfD. It looks to me that notability is self-claimed and, in any case, even if true, problematic. Delete. Nlu (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I find no sources meeting WP:RS to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Only due to WP:V. There may be significant coverage out there, but not in English. --Triwbe (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V & WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus here over whether this merits an article or not based on the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Buckeye Bulldog

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

NN tractor. Do we have a notability requirement for farm equipment? there had been a prod from another editor on the article, denied by the creator.-- Syrthiss (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:IAR, doesn't assert notability for the tractor. Then take a ride on my Big Green Tractor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Perhaps it's because I live in redneck country, but "tractor pulls" are popular arena entertainment. Although I've never been to one of these events, I've known many a person who paid to watch the competition and see their favorite trucks and drivers. It's no less of a professional sport than drag racing or automobile racing. The website confirms the article's claim that the "Buckeye Bulldog" is at the top of its super-semi competition. To me, this easily passes the low threshhold of notability that Knowledge (XXG) confers upon sports. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Response Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a multi-million dollar Mack Semi is a piece of farm equipment, but nonetheless, this is a professional sport and this specific team has been competing since 1984, and the owner, who I am not merely looking up on the internet, but am related to, was one of the first people in the world to create of of these monsters. I included the team's website so that if nothing else, it can be verified that this truck does exist in a real sport. I suppose if there isn't a chance to make this page worthy of Knowledge (XXG) delete users, then there ain't no reason to be workin' on it then, huh? Oh, and cheers.--Benjamin.bachna (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that. Speaking of farm equipment, I've heard that people enjoy watching horses run around an oval. Can you imagine? Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete It may be a professional sport and it may be good at it, but I dont see anything that makes this notable. Q 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep What makes the article in question not notable while this one is? Notice Sec. 3.6 --Benjamin.bachna (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Your argument is invalid, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We are discussing the merits of this article. Cocytus 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid objection. Shouldn't the same rules apply to "tractor pulls" that apply to other motor sports? Or, for that matter, other competitions that are big enough to play sports arenas? I agree with you that most of the sports articles on here are "other crap", but until the threshold is raised on sports, its more of a matter of equal application of the rules, not of othercrapexists. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the same rules should apply to all sports. This sport does not get the reliable source coverage that other sports receive. The lack of coverage in reliable sources means a lack of coverage in wikipedia as notability can not be established without coverage. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete along with Template:Infobox Buckeye Bulldog and Template:Infobox Buckeyebulldog due to the apparent lack of multiple independent reliable sources about the subject and conflict of interest concerns. Adambro (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep - there is this, this, mention in this, won class in this event, and 2009 points champ. I think there is enough to keep it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The default criterion is something about citable sources that document significant and more than local coverage. But, there are catagories that have inherent notabiliy. I think licensed local radio stations and there may be some for athletes too. An encyclopedia is supposed to make the obscure accessible to the ignorant masses without being advertising. I'd look for inherent notability in various catagoies or athlete. Driving a tractor in a sporting event should qualify for "athlete" status especially if the regulating body has any national significance ( like NFL or MLB etc FWIW). LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

and of course the tractor itself should be inherently notable for "Winning" in such a competition as any other Gold medal winner. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Apparently the usage of the expression is so limited that it is not a very likely search term. Deleting for now and not leaving a redirect. Tone 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Xerophytophysiology

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

This article appears to be a piece of original research, as the author's username is very similar to the most frequently cited researcher in it. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: Even if the author is not one of the people named Xu cited within it, this article will need a serious overhaul to make it intelligible to a non-expert in the subject it discusses. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Sorry if it looks like that's the only focus of my comment below... it's just a connect-the-dots possible explanation as to why it ever came to Knowledge (XXG) and seems desperate for attention since there's no support for it in any other sources. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I would cite this as a case where anyone knowledgable in a topic is likely to have a conflict-a situation the FDA encounters all the time. Under the obscure but notable notion I've tried to invent, I'd ask the sponsor of this aricle to find citations to the work- a COI editor would be in the best position to do this. If you can establish significant note, at least by others in the field, it could make notability. This may in fact be a non-notable neologism but the sponsor should be encouraged to write related articles in the general area. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to xerophyte. The term does not receive enough usage to justify a separate article. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and do not redirect. The term is unused except by this single author, at least as far as a GScholar search shows. A ordinary case of an idiosyncratic neologism. Redirecting this permits redirecting any word that someone makes up and manages to get into the title of an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, and I have no idea how you could even merge it if you wanted to. The two formats are completely different, and this article is literally an unformatted blob of text. Anyway, let's make this really simple-- see username of publishing editor. Compare to the primary author listed in any google search result for the term (nothing but sites to buy what I assume is the original text); "XU Hui-Lian". Original research that can't seem to be found anywhere else, in an unformatted blob of text (which could be fixed if it had to, though), and username comparison along with a contributions check. There's no other action to take because of that technically-circumstantial evidence, but it can be used as weight here toward a delete consensus. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to "xerophyte". This is a neologism, mentioned only in passing by the references. Axl ¤ 07:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why redirect if this is pretty much an unknown term that's being pushed by a highly suspicious COI/OR conflict? The term has zero mention at all in the article being redirected to... if it's so incredibly void of notability that it's not found on a parent-type page, it has no place deserving a redirect since from an encyclopedia perspective the phrase doesn't exist. This is basically WP:YAMB in disguise. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The word is used in a handful of references, although those references use it only in passing. It could conceivably be a search term used by a reader. Axl ¤ 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly, it is actually used in the title of an article in a scientific journal. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gianna Bryant

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

Notability is not inherited and a child, even if the parents are famous, is entitled to some level of privacy. Shadowjams (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per wp:BLP policy 龗 (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Unsourced biographical article of a child who has generally not been in the public eye. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aram Avakian

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

Unremarkable director. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Prod removed by User:Phil Bridger with note of "remove silly prod tag". Discussion on the talk page pointed only to single Film Festival award as "evidence" of notability. News report search primarily just lists his name in passing in press releases about the few films he's done and his obituaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep. A brief search of sources shows that Avakian was a highly notable film professional. He was regarded as one of the most innovative editors of the 1960s and 1970s, editing films for leading directors like Arthur Penn ("Mickey One" and "The Miracle Worker") and Francis Ford Coppola ("You're a Big Boy Now" and, until he was fired after an attempted putsch, "Godfather Part II"). His work on "Girl of the Night" has been acknowledged for its early use of the freeze frame and the jump cut." He also edited and co-directed "Jazz on a Summer's Day", the first feature-film documentary of a music festival. And his direction of the 1972 film "End of the Road" became notorious and received an "X" rating for its graphic depiction of an abortion. When he died, The New York Times, Associated Press and other published lengthy obituaries. With more work, the article could be even better, but Avakian appears to easily pass general notability guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. JForget 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Arroyo (architect)

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

Previously deleted through WP:PROD, challenged, undeleted by me; needs full debate. There were two concurring PROD tags; Karljoos (talk · contribs) gave the reason "Notability. This young architect has neither made any impact, built any renowned building, nor has been subject to media coverage. No major academic publications. Part/time lecturer in a university"; Atama (talk · contribs) concurred: "Searching for sources was difficult. This person shares a name with a basketball player and Ecuadoran president but narrowing it down to a search for architects came up empty." Chick Bowen 03:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

keep I wrote an article on Carlos Arroyo in Spanish, and translated it into Duch. I was glad to see that someone had written (not translated) a new one in English. I just googled for Carlos Arroyo Architect and got 29.300 results. Then typed "Carlos Arroyo" architect -basketball -basket -NBA -baloncesto and got 16.200. --Arch-Ark (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) a lot of these refer to the architect, even though filters like -inpublisher:icon are mostly USA and South America centred. This is a European architect, and yet you find he is quoted in several Argentinian publications for instance.--Arch-Ark (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) ---------- also, in the article there is a list of printed books and periodicals, these are not online material, but if you google for the titles and indexes they are easily verified.--217.126.159.15 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

comment I just edited the article, adding his list of Awards, which I have found in his website (spanish/bio/full_cv).--Arch-Ark (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep - This person does appear to be notable in the architect world, primarily in Spain. There does seem to be enough available content on him (remember, as he's Spanish ""Carlos Arroyo" arquitecto"" is a better search term) and this building he designed seems to have garnered a lot of attention in which Clarence Seedorf lived in. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep International awards and honours, a long list of academic publications, TV programmes, radio broadcasts, and exhibitions in Venice Biennale or Paris Cité de l'Architecture, Carlos Arroyo is in the Scientific Committee of Europan, a most respected European-wide institution. He writes and publishes in El Croquis. His buildings are in Guidebooks. Guest lecturer in Tokio, New York's MoMA, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Milano, the whole of South America. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep seems to pass WP:CREATIVE. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jam boy

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

Found this prodded as a hoax. Seems to be an urban legend rather than a hoax, though for all I know it could be an urban legend that started on Knowledge (XXG), and thus a hoax. Would be useful if someone could comment on the book that's the cited as a source; the Observer reference isn't worth the electronic paper it's printed on. BTW the article is substantially the same as one on Urban dictionary. Declan Clam (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Whilst it does seem that the cited book does mention "Jam boys", neither that book or the Observer article seem to be the most serious of texts. Without something more concrete to give credence to those sources, I'm of the opinion that this should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I prodded this as a hoax. Nominator is correct in the sense the 'urban legend' began on Knowledge (XXG). The only relevant 'source' points back to Knowledge (XXG). Taken almost verbatim from UrbanDictionary.com and is most definitely a hoax. smooth00₇ (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax -Drdisque (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Cruz

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

Prod removed with no improvement. No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Obviously. Notability not established by reliable sources. Also conflict of interest concerns, the creator seems to be the subject of the article. Adambro (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as pure, homespun, WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable BLP Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Self-promotion for the Adjcp Company and its founder, whose initials are A.d.J.C.P., by User:Adjcp . I think it's just as likely that it's a practical joke being played on Sr. Cruz, which may call up WP:BLP. If this is seriously intended as an advertisement for someone who designs webpages, suffice to say that I've seen better Knowledge (XXG) pages than this one. Mandsford (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quilete legends

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Quilete legends

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

The material appears to be nothing more than a fan explanation of concepts from Twilight, no sources can be found for what is on the page that do not have to do with Twilight. Nothing really about the Quileute people. I'd redirect it to Quileute (tribe), but this article's title is mispelt. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as blatant hoax/nonsense -Drdisque (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense with no real context and no reliable sources. Citing wikiansweres.com (sic) as a source doesn't inspire much confidence. Adambro (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep Jayron32 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kelly O'Dwyer

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

Candidate for a parliamentary seat with no sources except those regarding her candidacy, no other noteabilities. Articles are not created/not created and left until election for electoral candidates, regardless of their chances of election, as there is no rule to say what sort of margin threshold qualifies for "likely enough to get elected for article to stay". This has been long-standing practise on wikipedia. Suggest deletion of this page, contents can be saved somewhere else until after election should she be elected. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep I've seen enough coverage of O'Dwyer during the preselection process and since to convince me that WP:BIO is met. The fact that she's almost certain to be elected to parliament in a few weeks time makes deletion a bit of a pointless exercise as well. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain in more detail, and along wikipedia guidelines, how news coverage of her candidacy and chances of election meet noteability guidelines? Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

News stories at the time of her preselection discussed the backgrounds of the various candidates for this safe seat, including O'Dwyer's. I think that this level of coverage has been sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it isn't sufficient. Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, that's your view, and I think that notability is met. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, it's wikipedia's view. Articles discussing an election candidate, in themselves, do not establish noteability. She has to be noteable for something else besides her candidacy. This is not my view, this is how it is. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep A few things:

1. As I argued at Talk:Higgins by-election, 2009, O'Dwyer will almost certainly be a member of parliament in one month's time. By the time this discussion has run its course, we'll be even closer to that date. Bring this up again in the unlikely even that O'Dwyer loses the by-election. For the time being the deletion of this article would be an exercise in overly fussy housekeeping. There's no harm in waiting.

2. The fact that O'Dwyer is the first woman to be preselected for a safe Liberal House of Reps seat in metro Melbourne – a point I added to the article today – gives her some claim to notability.

3. If there is an establishe d practice of purging the pages of election candidates, it's certainly not a consistent one. Take the upcoming US Congressional special election. Both Bill Owens and Doug Hoffman have wiki articles that revolve around their election candidacy. Reading through their pages I see nothing notable about either outside of their Congressional bids. Both articles have infoboxes devoted to their candidacy.

4. The guideline you're relying on says that "just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." But her notability is not simply the fact of her candidacy but also the likelihood her winning. It's what distinguishes her from her opponents. (Which are the sort of people the guideline is really referring to.)

Digestible (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1. We do not pre-empt articles, it really is that simple. We do not create articles for candidates based on their likelyhood of winning.

2. The first female candidate of x area is not a claim to noteability. Female member, yes, candidate, no.

3. Knowledge (XXG) removes non-noteable election candidates. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

4. See 1.

It's really basic and simple guys - it's wikipedia policy. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I am not arguing for the pre-emptive creation of the article. The article has already been created. I am arguing against the pre-emptive destruction of this article.

2. Maybe, maybe not. That's not for you alone to decide. It's certainly been mentioned in her press coverage.

3. The two articles I cited are not about to be deleted. If you're going to claim precedent, you can't cherry pick.

4. Let me put it another way. The guideline says (paraphrasing) political candidacy does not guarantee notability. You've interpreted this to mean something like: political candidacy alone cannot confer notability. There is a subtle but important difference here. As a refutation of your interpretation I cite Wendell Wilkie whose presidential candidacy was his main (arguably sole) claim to notability.

Digestible (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: not sufficiently notable for anything besides being an election candidate. It is against wikipedia policy to predict whether she will win and become notable. Barrylb (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Provisionally keep (first pref) or move to userspace/project space (second pref) as an almost certain near-future member of the Parliament, but delete per WP:POLITICIAN if she fails to be elected. Seems a waste of time to delete the page only to have to DRV to reinstate it in a couple of months if she's successful. Orderinchaos 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we said move the page, not delete it. So despite this violating wikipedia guidelines, what's the threshold for candidates? When the next federal election is here, can we create articles for all non-marginal party-incumbent candidates? Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

- Userification or projectification would be a quite acceptable alternative to keeping. Just thinking about this from a common sense point of view, if we have an article which people can build, add refs to etc, then by close of counting on election night we actually have a pretty decent article (in theory at least). If the worst comes to the worst, we sin-bin it. I'm not saying this approach works in all cases, but in the case of a candidate in a particular race where pretty much all commentators are agreed they're all but certain to win (especially given the main alternative is not running), I think it's fair to have an article for now. Orderinchaos 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already said I have no problem moving it to user or project space - simply that at the moment it violates noteability guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to userspace. There is no transience to notability - either someone is notable or they are not. O'Dwyer, at present, is not. Being the first Liberal woman nominated to a safe Melbourne seat is stretching it a bit. What next - the first Labor woman preselected for a safe seat in south-west Sydney? Having this sort of article establishes a very unwelcome precedent, and as the by-election is still more than a month out I think that's a little too long. Actually I think the idea of having candidate articles in userspace is an excellent one - it allows us to build on what becomes known of them during the campaign and then still have a decent article when and if they are elected. It's complete speculation to say that she's "almost-certain to be elected" - especially when nominations for the by-election have not even closed. Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As i've said to show how rediculous this is - if we go down this track, what's the margin needed to know the candidate is likely enough to be elected that we can pre-empt someone's noteability and create a page on them? And at election time can we go around creating all these candidate pages in the *expectation* they'll be elected? Honestly, this is just silly. Someone is noteable or they aren't. O'Dwyer isn't. As i've said, move to user/projectspace. It doesn't belong as an article, yet. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:BIO in the sense that "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." There is independent coverage here and here. Concerns about WP:POLITICIAN are irrelevant given that she meets the more general guideline. And lets be honest, she's going to meet that guideline as well in a month or so. Lankiveil 06:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

That's not the point. If the -ONLY- WP:RS are those covering a candidate's candidacy, that is not sufficent to establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply, I don't see anything at WP:BIO or WP:N that says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article (unless it's about a run for political office, in which case it doesn't count)." Your interpretation of the policy is, I believe, erroneous, and defies common sense. Lankiveil 06:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

It is common for political candidates to receive significant news coverage, but that alone is not enough to confer notability; such an approach would potentially result in a very large number of articles. Is there "common sense" in creating an article for every political candidate just because they are covered in the news? No. Barrylb (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN - Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Let me re-iterate. There are no WP:RS articles on Kelly O'Dwyer on anything other than her election candidacy. She has no noteability apart from her candidacy. As per practice with all past candidates with no other form of noteability, this page does not currently belong as an article. As I said before - should we be creating articles for all candidates who are more than likely going to be elected? Sorry but the arguments given in this AfD for keep hold no candle to wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that no one is arguing that all candidates for political office are automatically notable, the last part of your post seems a bit of a straw man argument. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But you seem to be under the impression that just because a candidate is very likely to get elected, that we should pre-empt that. Read WP:POLITICIAN... unless she has done something independent of running for political office which is noteable, then she should not have an article. Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Waste of time to delete, as it will be a 95%+ chance of winning a seat that has always been 58-62% blue-ribbon Tory over 40 years. This isn't a 50-50 seat, or a minor party senate candidate or 3rd ranking ALP/Lib senate candidate where there is a lot of luck needed to get in. If by some miracle she loses, then feel free to delete in a few weeks. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So again, the question is - if we're going to start a precedent of creating articles for candidates likely to be elected, what is the criteria, where does it end? A bio article cannot exist if someone isn't noteable - we cannot pre-empt a likelyhood - we cannot crystal ball. Something either is or it isn't. She isn't. She should be moved to a userspace and kept off the encyclopedia until we can verify that she is noteable and suitable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern but it is quite pointless to go around in a circle in the 40% of safe seats, especially when the event is only a month away YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the harm in moving the article to userspace and preserving wikipedia's guidelines, rather than just looking the other way and ignoring these guidelines, simply due to the fact that noteability criterion, if it happens, is one month away? Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep, in one months time, all indicators show that we will all still be arguing about this and she will be then be sitting in parliament. She, O'Dwyer, is notable as a female whom is contesting a by-election, not an normal election. This is an exta-ordinary event, she is also contesting the seat for the incumbent party in that electorate and therefore is worthy of an article. Neatherless an article will be re made in a months time when she is elected anyway. The Greens don't have a hope, sorry. Watchover (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The AEC has not declared her the winner, thus she has not yet won the seat. Timeshift (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, "the Greens don't have a hope" is OR. You may think that, I certainly think that, but that's our opinion. Just as it is our opinion, even if it is the majority opinion, that O'Dwyer will win. There are no polls to point to, only precedent. See Frome by-election, 2009. Frickeg (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not here on wikipedia to make adhoc, adlib decisions on who we think will soon enough be noteable and soon won't. Someone either is or isn't noteable. This woman isn't, yet. She should be moved to userspace (not deleted) to preserve the integrity of wikipedia's noteability policies. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yawn... I only say that the Greens don't have a hope because of the majority of the editors show strong opinions towards the Greens as if they can win in any seat, and that they are the 'third force' or the 'alternative' thats all. The Frome by-election, 2009 was a marginal seat. Higgins is not. In fact, the Division of Higgins has never had to go to preferences, Frome has. I do not wish to continue in this discussion I am going to go somewhere else and "preserve" Knowledge (XXG)'s integrity. Watchover (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's saying the Greens have a substantial chance of winning? Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neil McCraith

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

Pretty close to a blatant hoax made up by some mates at school I would guess. None of the refs match and there was similar vandalism at Australian Handball that I just reverted. The-Pope (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete hoax -Drdisque (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, was about to do this myself, I can't find the autobiography the article's writer is attempting to reference at the publisher's site, nor any other sources. The "sources" cited don't even mention the subject's name. Seraphimblade 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete with due rapidity as obvious hoax. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anime Fannatiku

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources on google to prove the notability or importance of this anime convention. Article doesn't have any citations either. TParis00ap (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Article does not claim notability and in fact proves its lack with attendance of ~300. -Drdisque (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Lack of notability, and with that attendance, I don't see anything changing that. One of the links is to livejournal, which doesn't strike me as a suitable link, and the other is to a convention database, nothing likely to give any sense of importance or notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah, it's too small. Second in Utah? Utah isn't that big a place. --Gwern (contribs) 20:06 31 October 2009 (GMT)
Comment 300 people is small but not unheard of, there are anime conventions listed on wikipedia with not alot of attendance. For those making their choice on that it should be notability and references over attendance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete I once knew of a con that was notable at just over 400 attendees, but that's neither hear nor there. A search for reliable sources isn't coming up with anything. So this convention fails WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. —Farix (t | c) 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per above, this convention is not notable nor does it have the reliable references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. JForget 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero day information

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

Unsourced, non-notabable, unencyclopedic content. It's been tagged for ages but there has been no effort to correct these issues. Since the article is about "underground" standards, it's going to be difficult to find any reliable sources to reference, leaving us with original research. Thus, while it may be a widely accepted standard within these communities, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Vertigo Acid (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete G4, recreated from previously deleted material. It lives on in Deletionpedia. Nominator is correct that this is unsourced, and since it isn't sourced, I can't verify whether the claims made are true. For that matter, I'm not fluent enough in computer jargon to even understand what the claims are. Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that you can't understand it is nothing to do with any lack of fluency on your part, but with the inability of the article author to write in comprehensible English. I was already forgetting computer jargon before most of the people that write this sort of bollocks were born, and I can't make any sense of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Prod-deleted a year ago and still incomprehensible and unverifiable. • Anakin 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was No consensus default to status quo. Jayron32 02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Plan 9 Publishing

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

I can find no evidence that this organisation has received any coverage from independent reliable sources. Per Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it.". From a Google search the only independent coverage I can find is from wikis, Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and other sources which could not be considered to be reliable. A Google News search turns up a blog and a user editable website. Beyond trivial mentions the general notability guideline states that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" in order to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The specific guideline for companies also states "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". So far I cannot find even trivial coverage (from independent reliable sources) - the article is dependent on original research and the official website of the company which hasn't been updated in 18 months. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - with heavy heart, for failure to meet WP:CORP...I like the 'Bastard Operator From Hell. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Guest9999 does not appear to be very good at searching for references and finds his own lack of skill an excuse to delete articles. Plan 9 is/was an influential small independent publisher that boosted the comics industry at a pivotal time in webcomics development. Note for instance that Pete Abrams, author of Sluggy Freelance, which Plan 9 initially published, is credited as being the first webcomics artist able to make a living off his comic. Guest9999 is moving too quickly with calls for deletion right now in this topic area. All such AfDs should be considered most carefully. Tags for lack of citation should be applied before a call for deletion. Netmouse (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Any sources? Guest9999 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
MIT The Tech book review of Sluggy Freelance; ComixTalk Interview with Plan 9's David Allen; Baen Publishing piece by Pete Abrams and John Ringo ; Witty World International Cartoon center Book review of Ozy and Millie "the major book publisher of collections of those strips is Plan Nine Publishing"; Slashdot - Bastard Operator from Hell II review "Plan Nine Publishing did a great job of laying out this book"; David Allen Interview in the Fall 2004 Journal of the Lincoln Heights Literary Society and of course every single amazon.com page for one of the paperbacks published by Plan 9; and the incomplete but helpful Books by ISBN page. There's a few. Took me longer to write them up than to find them. Netmouse (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Without dealing with the nature of the sources themselves - included, among others, are a student newspaper, a webcomic and Slashdot - none of those sources except those which involved a member of staff of the company (not independent) discuss the publisher in any king of detail - there is still a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Guest9999 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those sources:

MIT: This is not about the company, but about the book, so not relevant to this article.
ComixTalk: I found this as well, and will add the little extra information I had not found in the Triad Business Journal article that I have used as a source on the article, should the article survive AfD
Baen Publishing: not about the company, but about the Sluggy Freelance strip
Witty World International: not about the company, but about the Ozy & Millie strip. The line you quote is all they say about the company - it's not "significant coverage"!
Slashdot: not about the company but about the BOFH - the line you quote is all they say about the company, again it's not "significant coverage"
Lincoln Heights: Some useful information that could further any significant coverage, but the Lincoln Heights Literary Society would probably not constitute a reliable source according to Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria.

In summary, two of the sources could be used to add a couple of snippets to the article, but they regretably do not constitute the "significant coverage" which the Notability Criteria mention -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While Guest9999 did propose for deletion on the basis of notability as well, the complaint I was attending to in my quick search was lack of verification. The major factual statements in the article have to do with whether or not the publisher did in fact publish the notable comics listed. Even if references are about the books/comics, if they confirm that Plan 9 was the publisher of those comics, they verify facts in the article. The references I pointed to do that. Searching for '<title>' and 'published by Plan 9' was all that was necessary to find those sources, and can also be done for the other comics. I've updated the Sluggy Freelance article so you can see the list of Sluggy Freelance books/collections published by Plan 9. This would be a good thing to do for all related articles, and help someone unfamiliar with the topic appreciate Plan 9 Publishing's influence in the field. Netmouse (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of independent media has to do with the publisher, not whether or not the piece "involved" the person being covered. Or would you argue that someone's being interviewed in Time magazine would not serve as a reliable source demonstrating notability and indicating information verification because the magazine "involved" the subject? The publisher is most certainly the greatest expert on why he started the company, which is one of the statements in the article that needs a citation... Netmouse (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They may well be a reliable source for certain information but the information in the articles still comes almost entirely from the company's founder. I am not comfortable with an article about a corporation being based almost entirely on information from someone with such an interest in it. The publications in question are not Time, Time has a reputation for accuracy backed up by full time fact checkers and a legal department, something I doubt either of the two interviewing sites have. I do understand your point of view and reasoning - I just disagree with it in this instance. Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that links to the product pages on Amazon (and any store) violate WP:EL (and certainly don't count under WP:RS) and should be removed from an article not added, as you seem to suggest with "and of course every single amazon.com page for one of the paperbacks published by Plan 9". (Emperor (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Actually, WP:EL specifically states "this guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". I see no particular point of WP:RS that repudiates the use of a store site to verify the manufacturer of items for sale, when indicated by that store. Especially a store so well-established for its database as amazon.com. I agree that other sources would be better, but disagree that such liks 'when used as references, not advertising, should be stripped from articles, as a rule.Netmouse (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not according to, WP:ELNO #15 - if you need to provide a source for product information then the ISBN is sufficient because then people can pick the store of their choice. Putting the link in a footnotes doesn't magically make it OK. Fell free to raise this at WT:EL or find somewhere where there is a consensus that Amazon is somehow superior to all the other stores with identical information, but until then I can't see why it should be used. (Emperor (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

As a side note I have yet to find or see any reliable sources which can confirm whether the company is still exists or is operating. Guest9999 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not it has stopped operation, the article should remain. Even historically (if it is no longer operating) the company is notable.Netmouse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the publishers continued operation is not relevant to its notability - notability is not temporary. What is relevant is whether basic facts (such as whether it is active) can be verified by reliable sources so that the information can be included in the article (should it be kept) and whether a high-quality, accurate encyclopaedia article on a topic for which such basic facts cannot be confirmed is viable. Guest9999 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete The only source I could find was through the company's own website (and I have added this information to the article). I am reluctant to have an article about a company which seems to be notable deleted, but as yet I cannot find proof of that notability (I'm a great fan of the BOFH series). I have contacted the company, to see if they are still operational (so that the details in the article can be updated if appropriate), and to see if they know of any independent, reliable sources of information. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete as per Phantomsteve's rationale. I always thought Plan 9 was on the cusp of notability, I'm now doubting it's on the right side of the line. -- Kaszeta (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Some of Netmouse's refs (those in the first part of the list) look decent sources by the standards of popular culture, and it's unreasonable to require academic sources in such a topic (hell, it's hard to find academic sources on a well-established genre like science fiction). I note that Sluggy Freelance has a citation from The Times, and other sources record that Plan 9 published the print edition of Sluggy Freelance. Kevin and Kell, another web comic that has attracted attention in "real life", is also recorded as published in print by Plan 9.
2nd option use: relist in 12 months. --Philcha (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The basic problem here is WP:NOTINHERITED. A publisher which publishes various notable webcomics, but which has not in itself received anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, cannot be held to be notable under our criteria. Johnny Depp and Bruce Willis might catch the same number 9 bus to work every morning, but it doesn't mean that the bus is worthy of an article. If the company receives significant coverage in future then there's nothing wrong with recreating this, especially as that might actually provide more than a couple of sentences of material on the company itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that whilst the webcomics themselves may be notable and their media franchises as a whole, the individual books - i.e. the portion of the franchise relating to this publisher - almost certainly aren't. Penny Arcade is definitely a notable webcomic, that doesn't mean that the company which manufactures figurines based on its characters is necessarily notable. Guest9999 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - does anyone here have access to NewsBank, or to the Greensboro, North Carolina News & Record archives--in particular, this article? It looks like it could be useful based on the excerpt, but I don't have access to the rest. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as lacking significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, seems to be an online fantasy team. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chilwell Gamblers

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

The majority of this is almost certainly a hoax. After looking at their Facebook page I am not even sure in what form the team exists. I can find no coverage by independent reliable sources which could establish the team's notability or verify the content of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

gave it a speedy-tag Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. leaning towards keep Cirt (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Unseen University

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

The entire article is plot and original research. This article is a mess, and I don't see any way to fix it. 34k bytes and no references.Blargh29 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Last time I poked around the article, it was a well-written piece on a fictional piece of real-estate that his been an important part of about a dozen books (at least). And a semi-important part in even more books. Heck, it's even the setting for a half-non-fictional book (The Science of Discworld) Lots42 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is flawed but deletion is not the answer. It could possibly be reformatted as a list of Characters. The jokey writing style of Discworld makes it hard to describe anything except in its own fictional rather silly terms. Direct quotes need to be used a bit more for some of the unavoidably silly descriptions, more specific citations to each book and page references would help raise the quality too. Deletion is entirely inappropriate, the article needs work not removal. -- Horkana (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There must be reliable third party sources covering the this topic in order for it to pass WP:N. Just citing to the book itself isn't enough.--Blargh29 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to call WP:SOFIXIT on this. There are literally scores of Discworld-related articles on Knowledge (XXG), almost none of which have 3rd party citations. Most of them were created early in Knowledge (XXG)'s evolution before notability guidelines had solidified. However, I am the only person who edits them on an even remotely regular basis. Most of my work has consisted of merging smaller articles together to get their number down to a more manageable size. Finding secondary sources for every Discworld article would be a Herculean task, and it's not one I have any interest in taking on alone. I have more important issues to deal with. So. Either delete Knowledge (XXG)'s entire Discworld domain or find those sources yourself. Discworld is the second best-selling fantasy series in the world after Harry Potter. There are bound to be plenty. Serendi ous 09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I object to unencyclopedic, original research essay language, such as "The University's gargoyles have taken on a life of their own (not that this is anything unusual for Discworld gargoyles in general)." But the article as a whole -- compared to others of its type in Wiki -- is fairly reasonable and informative. Unless the intent is to remove, for example the "Characters" sections entirely from Knowledge (XXG) articles, a certain amount of synthesis is unavoidable. The "Characters" section, however, should be trimmed to about 1/10th its length, removing commentary that is either quoted from the books, or is cute inventive language intended to sound as if it is. Examples: "the Bursar, a man whose idea of excitement was a soft-boiled egg" and "At UU, he fulfills the role of the one person in the organisation who knows what's going on and why it's happening and who's doing it, although he often wishes he didn't." Piano non troppo (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also, Blargh29, compare with List_of_species_(Animorphs). And also compare the sterile List_of_characters_from_Coronation_Street with the linked Peter_Barlow_(Coronation_Street). A distinguishing feature of the Barlow article is that it provides references, but the references aren't especially encyclopedic. In one place, the actor playing the fictional character is quoted (shouldn't that be the writer or the director?) and in another reference it's a "Coronation Street spokesperson". I don't know how many TV shows are well-heeled enough to have a spokesperson, and in lieu of them, who is reliable? A similar problem pertains to books. Who besides the author is a reliable reference? And if the author won't talk -- or is dead -- would that mean there are no reliable references? In terms of outright deletion for lack of being "savable", I'd vote for the Animorphs article, first. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Agree entirely with Serendipodous. For all that the article lacks references it is neither noticeably inaccurate nor, by the standards of these things, unencyclopedic. If it were to be deleted then pound-to-a-penny a Pratchett fan would come along within days and start an UU article that wouldn't be 10% as good as this. Declan Clam (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep major plot element in very noitable series of fictions. If the fictions were less important, I;d look for a merge. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 in Malaysia

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

It's not 2010 yet, too early Cynof Gavuf 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete the article lacks even one source, is unfinished and is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL--Coldplay Expert 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Article needs sourcing, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. 2010 is only 2 months away, and fits in with the other articles in the category Category:2010 by country. Lugnuts (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep material will very soon be coming ,and it does no harm to set up a little early. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per DGG. No crystalball concerns (it seems to me it doesn't predict anything non trivial), useful framework. --Cyclopia 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article needs considerable work in every way, and even though it fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL point #2, just take a look at what they did with (and note the number of sources on) 2009 in Malaysia. They're even using 2010 in Malaysia for a practical purpose right now. And as Lugnuts pointed out above, 2010 is reasonably almost upon us. Oh, and one last thing... this is my first post on AfD ever. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep "It's not 2010 yet, too early". I think that maybe we should revisit this one in a couple of months, see what happens, and if it still isn't 2010 by that time, then definitely a delete. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Merge and redirect to List of African Union member states. Consensus seems to indicate that a few data items should be preserved after the merge, so a straight redirect would probably not work here. I will leave it up to interested editors with the technical expertise in working with tables to complete the merge. Jayron32 02:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of African Union member states by population

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

Entirely redundant to List of African countries and territories. The percentage is not very important and is easily calulable. Reywas92 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Morocco is not a member of the AU, so it isn't completely redundant to the other article. As a standalone list, I have no opinion either way, but perhaps merging into AU article could occur? I'll leave it up to others to discuss, but am merely posting here to inform about position of Morocco in the AU. --Russavia 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I had added information to List of African countries and territories about AU membership. I suppose a merge to African Union would work as well, but this does not need to be stand-alone. Reywas92 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of African Union member states. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to List of African Union member states, but only after that list is made sortable by population numerically (not alphabetically as currently). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick McMahon

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

Marginal non-notable actor; no sources indicating any actual notability. Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete His stage credits are, of course, not notable if they were just small local productions (which is probably the case; there's no indication to the contrary), and as for his movie roles, only two of the three he mentions in the article appear on the IMDb; one of the two is a short, not a full-length movie; and neither has even been released yet! Though, honestly, neither of them seems significant enough that they'll make him notable even after they are released... —Smeazel (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Smeazel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep and Merge to Third Coast. Interested editors may complete the merge at their leisure. Jayron32 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Coast

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

Non-notable attempt at formulating a new marketing-savvy term for the Third Coast Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Coldplay Expert 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Third Coast, since those are apparently both marketing/colloquial names for the same region. To be honest, I've never heard either of those terms used to describe the region around the Great Lakes. Being in Minnesota, I'm biased, though; I just think of it as being the North Shore, ignoring 4 1/2 other lakes. --Elkman 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Fine with a) Merge to Third Coast. Though I would suggest that the Mayor of Milwaukee using the term to refer to the city and/or region, although arguably a "marketing-savvy term," is actually notable. Indeed, it counters Rust Belt (which Third Coast does not) and emphasizes the resource of fresh water, which is going to be increasingly notable in years to come.--Restecp 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- response - I disagree with the merge proposal. They occupy different mindspaces. Third Coast has been a widely-used term for some years, intended as an alternative to the whole "Rust Belt" vibe with a tourism appeal. Fresh Coast, on the other hand, is a non-notable neologism, intended to counter the Rust Belt mindset by appealing to the "fresh water is our future" meme; but fails under WP:NEO to meet our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete unused neologism, that happens to have been "coined" (if something essentially unused can actually be "coined") by someone somewhat notable. Similar to if Kato Kaelin or J.T. O'Sullivan invented a word that nobody uses. -Drdisque (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)
Merge and redirect to Third Coast. they are the same subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was Delete Jayron32 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rapid Assault Tactics

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

Non-notable self-defense system Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per my previous comments on the Talk page. JJL (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete i would change my mind if i saw an article talk about it Cynof Gavuf 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article seems closely tied to the one on Paul Vunak--it seems like they're either both notable or both NN. The letters of appreciation on the subject's home page are nice, but I'd like to see some 3rd party coverage. Even the letters aren't completely convincing. For example, the letter from the Seals says they'll be testing the system--there's no documentation that they're using it. JJL, on the talk page you said it's covered in Black Belt magazine. I went to the magazine's web site and searched unsuccessfully for an article on either this system or Paul Vunak, but I admit that's not necessarily conclusive. Vunak's DVDs and books are obviously not independent sources. An independent article on this system, combined with the letters I read, could convince me to support keeping this article.Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete due to non-notability. There are no URLs with ".gov" in them that reference Paul Vunak. And per JJL's previous comments on the talk page: Anybody can make a claim about teaching something to Navy Seals, and it may technically be true. I can personally make claims that I've trained to become a Green Beret, that I've trained with Special Forces, and that I've actually trained Special Forces recruits/members myself. My claims are entirely true, but extremely misleading. The only source for the Wiki article in question is to Paul Vunak's page itself. Delete with prejudice. FFLaguna (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A Google search seems to suggest that the Black Belt Magazine article about Vunak was April 2006 - not sure if anyone has accessible archives going far enough back - anyone know a library that could provide access? If that's the only independent source available then it's probably not notable enough. -- Medains (not logged in due to laziness) 82.219.208.105 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Actually, I believe the cover was April 2008. I haven't read the article, which is apparently titled "The Only Weapon Technique You'll Ever Need". The website (http://scientificfighting.com/) describes the system as a "top secret hand-to-hand fighting system" that allows anyone to "become a lethal weapon in just hours." The system certainly does not seem to be widespread. I'll consider changing my vote, but only with some proof of independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix kutsuu

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

Contested prod. Martial art with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -- timed 16:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete Absolutely no notability. Reywas92 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC

Why delete this article and why is it marked absolutely no notability. I am currently researching this and the reasons for this action.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete thinly veiled vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete This could be a short section in an article on Jacky Steele. We could move the article there, but since it's a living person we shouldn't unless sources are found. Pirate 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Miracleworks

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

fails WP:ORG, with little or no third party coverage. Ironholds (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete; not apparently mentioned in any reliable sources, and is a bit of a coatrack besides—the latter half of the article ignores the nominal subject of the article to expound on the status of the game industry in New Zealand. —Smeazel (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: These games haven't appeared yet and may not be notable when they do. We need some real product. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Garry Boy Garcia

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

Currently unreferenced; notability not established with verifiable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. User234 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This is the only comprehensible information which I found about Garry Boy Garcia. I don't consider it as a substantial source. --Vejvančický (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Barracks Kranj

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

Unreferenced, possibly not notable enough for an encyclopedia -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable structure -Drdisque (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete No claim of notability or any sources to support anything about it. WP is not a directory. DMacks (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jural society

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

Google searches indicate that a "jural society" is some sort of fringe movement in US religion or politics. Conceivably an article could be written about that movement if it is notable, but the current article is about "jural society" as a legal term with an actual meaning independent from the fringe phenomenon. As far as I can tell, no such independent meaning or term exists, and the article should be deleted per WP:SOAP, WP:V and WP:NEO. Sandstein 07:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: The Google Books searches indicate that a separate legal meaning of "jural society" may exist in older writings, but the term seems to have been usurped by the fringe movement and does not appear to be used much in its original sense; an article about the legal term, if at all possible, would amount to a WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 07:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It may be possible to write an article about "jural society" as a fringe topic or as a historical concept, but this article is not it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable fringe concept. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Extramural Lecture Series

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

No indication that this lecture series is notable. Most universities have a lecture series with famous speakers, but that doesn't make the lecture series itself notable. PROD declined ~~without reason~~, reason on talk page but doesn't address notability concerns. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Inappropriate article written in 3rd person--miscellaneous lecture series at a single university. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per DGG and nom Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Meets speedy criteria in my opinion. A college class is not notable -Drdisque (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Deosn't pass WP:NOTE. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seminar on the United Nations and International Affairs

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete I couldn't find sources either, but the name is very difficult to search & I admit I did not try every conceivable approach. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete I smell a rat here. For an organisation that has supposedly been in operation since 1952 with loads of high school kids taking part it has very poor coverage. No blogs?? From looking around the web, if it hadn't been on wikipedia for so long, I would have said it looks a bit like a very advanced phishing scam. Polargeo (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete -Drdisque (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was history-merge New Visions 31 to this article.. So Why 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

West TV

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

Content forked from New Visions 31, delete page and move/update New Visions into its place to preserve edit history. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 06:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC) ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 06:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
History merge/Redirect this doesn't belong at AFD, it's just a bad copy/paste/move problem. Both pages are valid - as far as I can tell, New Visions 31 should redirect to West TV, but should have a history merge done to show the true pathway to the current article.The-Pope (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
History Merge, basically per User:The-Pope above. No real reason for deletion, but a history merge will make the page's history easier to trace. Lankiveil 05:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

HaMerotz LaMillion 2

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

Subject that it hasn't yet announced by Israeli TV. Actually, the article has uncited and unreferenced. ApprenticeFan 10:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I found zero sources. Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Huelar virus

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

I can't find significant coverage for this computer virus. Joe Chill (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable sources are available on Google news. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lacie Dodd

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

Prod removed with little improvement. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows etc. Tassedethe (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 14:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No sources have been provided other than MySpace, Twitter, and an IMDb page showing a single role in a production which may or may not have been released yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete not notable -Drdisque (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Non notable BLP. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)