Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 27 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete by Acroterion (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Claims of notability cannot be verified. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. Already decided under Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Office 15 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft office 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Aside from an occasional college newspaper mention, no reliable sources to indicate notability of a musical group. The self-promotion issues can be addressed, but the general notability cannot, as seen by a sample google news search. tedder (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Week does mention them in gig listings, and so does the Merc. Gig listings, obviously, aren't an indication of notability. tedder (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri. If there hadn't been an editor willing to step forward to offer to actually do this, I would have closed this No Consensus and suggested that the individual streets be passed back to AfD individually; but since there is, and to save large amounts of editor's effort, I have closed as Merge. I haven't removed the AfD tags from the individual articles; this will be taken care of during the merge. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Carr Street (St. Louis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:MetroFan2009 recently created about 30 street stubs for St. Louis streets. The numbered ones have already been redirected to a merged numbered streets article, but the named streets remain. All of them are identically formatted stubs, created en-masse. None of them have any sourcing, and only descriptions of where they run. None have any indication of notability. I say that referring to both the old notability criteria for streets that was at WP:Notability (Transportation) and the new proposal at Knowledge:Notability (streets, roads, and highways).

I've also seen a general uptick in small-street article creation of the past month, and I wonder if this is part of some growing trend. I worry about the precedent these kinds of mass creations set. In either case, the uncontroversial position has always been that a normal street is not notable. It needs references that indicate it's more than simply a street, such as a major thoroughfare, or a highway. None of these, from what I can tell in the articles, meet that definition. Shadowjams (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Full list of nominated articles:

  • Speedy close - Probably the largest batch-nomination I've ever seen on Knowledge. First off, the AfD is impossible to manage. It has a practically infinite amount of outcome combination possibilities (a mathematician probably could come up with a number). I would suggest to the nom they investigate the consensus with these city streets in the relevant projects (Knowledge:WikiProject St. Louis and Knowledge:WikiProject U.S. Roads for examples) before nominating so many articles, no less so many articles in one AfD. Customarily, streets in large city centers (most of these seem in Downtown St. Louis) are not deleted. But even arguing notability in this AfD is a frivolous endeavor. Tasking editors to investigate and research over 30 article topics in one AfD is silly to say the least. --Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please assume some good faith. Batch nominations are entirely appropriate for this sort of issue; I'm certainly not the first to use them in response to massive stub-creation, which is exactly what this is. If there's a specific example you'd like to give that doesn't meet my description above, I'll gladly remove it. None of those reasons justify a "speedy close". You'll note that the Speedy Close/Keep reasons are reserved almost exclusively for disruptive nominations, which you've called this by implication. It's fine if you disagree, but a speedy close is certainly not appropriate here.
    As for the actual articles, I also don't think that it's accurate that we keep every downtown street in every metro center. The street criteria I linked above is quite clear about that. That reasoning applies to each article. If you have some examples of similar stubs that exist without indicating their notability, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. If any of these articles are expanded beyond gazetteer trivia during this AFD - these of course should be kept for now (without prejudice to individual AFDs in the future). NVO (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all There's nothing to be gained by deletion here. I've browsed the sources for Carr Street and this seems to be a substantial street in a historic part of town with notable features such as a ferry across the Mississippi. If the rest are other downntown streets then they will have a similar historic character but we're not going to be checking them all out right now. Per WP:BEFORE and our editing policy, we should be exploring sensible alternatives to deletion first. Merger to Downtown St. Louis would be better than deletion, for example - maintaining the edit histories, assisting navigation, forestalling recreation and enabling the individual articles to be fleshed out as material accumulates. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Provide some of those sources please. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Please see the search links at the head of this discussion. Then spend 10 minutes browsing the sources to see what's out there like I did. Or have you done this for each of these streets already? Please share the findings you made prior to your nomination per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:BEFORE is not a requirement. WP:V, on the other hand, is, and WP:PROVEIT clearly places the burden of proof on those seeking to retain or include content. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • WP:BEFORE is certainly a requirement and failure to observe this is WP:DISRUPTION. WP:V is sensible too but citations are only required for controversial or disputed facts. Please indicate those facts to which you are referring. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • The sources Colonel Warden provided from the 1870s do little to indicate that this street is notable; I would wager that I can find references to any major downtown street from any major city (or minor city) over the past 140 years. That doesn't meet notability in a general sense, and especially not in a specific sense, detailed in the links I've provided above, but that none of the deletes have referred to.
              I'm not easily offended, but please don't patronize me with reference to WP:BEFORE. I've spent plenty of time rehabilitating articles, and researching them, including the set I've nominated here (there are a number of other street articles I've not nominated, after review; from other editors). For as much as we've seen each other around AFD and other places, I'm stunned at your lack of faith in my AfD.
              That aside, none of your three references, spanning over a century, indicate some specific reason why the street is unique, other than that it's existed this entire time. The NYTimes article indicates buildings were damaged on Carr Street, the Barker book, out of 127 pages references Carr Street on one page; and the Chicago Tribune's 139 year old article on Carr Street only indicates it was frozen over. If that's all it takes I've got about 100,000 Main Street articles that need to be made. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Please indicate the other St Louis street articles upon which you have worked so that we may understand the context of your bulk nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                • If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't attack me or other editors under the auspices of WP:BEFORE, particularly when I've explained in detail my response. Are you actually accusing me of being disruptive? Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • You have not yet told us clearly what research you did upon these topics before bringing them all here. This information would assist the discussion as most of us are starting from scratch in consideration of these places. I myself have only visited there once and so naturally would take some time to document it fully, should I wish to do so. As for your person, I applaud your Knowledge philosophy as expressed upon your user page: "Readers first ... Stubs are critical". Please explain how deletion would be consistent with this philosophy as it seems that removal of these links would obstruct readers in locating information about these places and would tend to obstruct development of these topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Please provide a link to where consensus was reached to make WP:BEFORE a requirement. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Ordinary streets are not notable. If there is any particular reason for notability in any particular case then that fact should be demonstrated. Leaving aside arguments such as whether WP:BEFORE is a requirement, and concentrating on whether evidence of notability of any or all of these streets has been produced, the answer is clearly "no". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete streets are not inherently notable. All of these street and road articles need to go, before they multiply even more. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all Changing vote, now that there's a place to merge all these. Mass nominations are appropriate in the case of a mass creation of articles, in this case part of a larger project Streets of Greater St. Louis. It would be a bad precedent to encourage an individual article for any street in the world. Although the headline article is moderately interesting, most of these demonstrate no notability at all: "Sidney Street is an east-west street in St. Louis, Missouri", "Utah Street is an street in St. Louis, Missouri.", "Germania Street is an street in St. Louis, Missouri", "Thomas Street is an east-west street in St. Louis, Missouri", etc. followed by a geographic identifier along the lines of "it runs from here to here". Very, very few streets are notable enough for their own article. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete All - A mass nomination is appropriate in this case as all of the articles are related and exhibit the same problem. Streets are generally not notable barring significant coverage about the street. These articles make no claim for notability within the article body. And in case anybody is concerned that we are deleting a notable street, the contents are so insubstantial that we aren't really losing any information of significance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per Whpq. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - I would be fine if you merged these into a Streets of St. Louis article as discussed by others here. You should do that now. The pages, in any case, won't be deleted for a few days at the earliest. Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - OK then. But I just Want some of the articles to have their own pages. The reason that I created then is because that other Users are creating some streets for their U.S. Streets. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
  • - Add sources that indicate notability and then specify which of those are notable. But note that there need to be special indications about why the street itself is notable, not just a mention of the street in history. Shadowjams (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I can only hope that the administrator will look at the arguments concerning policy, since it would be a major change in policy to declare that all streets are inherently notable. The street I live on is notable, but only because I happen to live there, which probably wouldn't merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that all streets are inherently notable, but these all seem to bear some historical interest and, while some (like Walnut Street (St. Louis)) may require a lot of work, while others (like Carr Street (St. Louis)) seem to be better-sourced. I think, however, that an individual page for each might be a bit of a stretch, but merging them into one article doesn't sound bad--this is, after all, an encyclopedic topic, and with the sources available (do search on Google), along with the historical context of many, would warrant a combined article like Streets of St. Louis, perhaps even merging the numbered ones in as well. • ɔ ʃ → 03:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment To Jordan Wilson/ Metrofan, I'll say that I'd be happy to assist you in the transfer of your information to a user page. It would be called something like "User:Metrofan2009/Streets of St. Louis" and would allow you to work on the project at your own pace. As odd as it may sound, I like information about streets (very few people stop to think that John F. Kennedy's assassination truly was a "nightmare on Elm Street", for instance), and I think that an article that focuses on the streets of any particular city is a logical spinoff from the article about that city. What I oppose is setting the precedent for any street in the world to have a stub article that can be worked on later. Inherently notable topics can have their own stub (such as for a populated town, whether its incorporated or not). There are certain places in a town that are treated as inherently notable-- radio and TV stations, and (in practice) high schools and colleges. However, other things don't have that same status-- elementary and junior high schools do not, and, at the moment anyway, the local newspaper doesn't (I think that newspapers should be inherently notable, but the topic seldom comes up), and there will always be the "what type of precedent" debate on any expansion. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all Look at how much has been added to the Carr Street article since its nomination. . How can anyone read that now and doubt its notability? Good work on that folks. The rest could probably have information found on them as well. There is no sense needlessly deleting things, you gaining nothing by that, and if you aren't interested in it, you aren't likely to find it anyway. Dream Focus 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That may be a good policy reason for keeping Carr Street, but it certainly isn't a reason for keeping the other 30 or so articles. When an article is placed on Wikipeida, it has to either be about one of the inherently notable subjects referred to in WP:N, or it has to meet the general notability guidelines. It's not a matter of assuming that a subject is "probably" notable and that someone will get around to demonstrating that later. If that were the case, we would have thousands of articles every week about people, places and things that might probably be shown to be notable. In this case, the only reason that Carr Street passes is because Colonel Warden did someone else's homework for them. Great job on the part of someone other than the article's creator, but it's 1 down and 29 more to go -- until the next batch of these gets made. I have looked at all of the other street articles, and they are all essentially the same content-- (a) the street runs "north to south" or "east to west" and (b) it starts here and ends there. There is no sense in needlessly creating articles that one has no intention of ever working on. It's like declining to spay one's cat because one thinks kittens are cute, and then leaving each new litter of kittens in a public place on the rationale that "I don't want to take care of them, but there are other people who probably will." Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is not supported by policy. It is our clear editing policy that we may start in a small way and develop articles from stubs such as these:
“ ”
Colonel Warden (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:IMPERFECT is a good description on how to improve an article if the article is, indeed, about a notable subject. But it has nothing to do with WP:N, which will always be the policy to whether a topic is notable enough for its own article. If there is a policy concerning notability of streets, I will be happy to We are all aware of what the policy is about a topic having to be notable, either by WP:GNG or by one of the exceptions listed in WP:N. And we're all aware of the policy that an article about a topic which is, beyond question, notable, can start as a stub, such as when one is writing about a person who served in a nation's legislature. But the notability of a topic and the quality of writing are two separate things, and I think that any administrator will be able to separate the two. I could write a very poor article about a U.S. Congressman from the 1830s, and he would still be notable. And I could write a very eloquent and sourced article about my father, but that, by itself, would not prove that he meets the notability guidelines. Just as there is no inherent right for every person to have his or her own article, there is no inherent right for every street to have its own article. The compromise that has been followed has been to make a general article-- Streets of Albany, New York, List of streets in Baltimore, Maryland, List of roads in Hamilton, Ontario, and that option is available here. It will be unfortunate if this comes down to an "all or nothing" choice, because there is no precedent for keeping all street articles as a matter of right. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If Carr Street is the model for the potential of all the others, that only reinforces my points for deletion. I question if the Carr Street article as it is now meets the notability criteria. What's been added to Carr Street is not, as I keep saying about Carr street as opposed to being about other stuff on Carr Street. Carr Street itself needs to be notable, and having a NRHP church on the street does not make the street notable. Shadowjams (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Mandsford makes a good point. These can all be merged into a list and then the streets that are notable enough for their own article can be broken out that way as they are improved. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A satisfactory merger is not achieved by deletion. Deletion tends to obstruct good merger by removing useful search terms and links, removing the edit history and offending the contributors who wish to work upon the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing's been removed from those articles, AfD rarely removes content from articles (unless that content's inappropriate) and merger is very often a satisfactory outcome of AfDs. Furthermore, AfD-compelled-mergers actually get done, because they're done under the threat of deletion, unlike the merge templates that often (especially on rarely visited articles like these) languish for months if not longer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
A good essay on the common outcome is in WP:MILL, and it probably sums this up better than I can:
"Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.
There are many subjects for which multiple reliable sources independent of the subject do exist. One may assume on this basis that they are notable. But there are just so many of these things in the world, and they are so commonplace, that if an article on each were to be created, there would be so many articles on these alone, possibly more than there are total Knowledge articles to this day, and Knowledge would be clogged with these articles.
For example, a detailed street map shows every street within a city, down to every cul-de-sac with just four houses. Every city has at least several detailed street maps that have been published. But in one square mile of an urban area, there are hundreds, even thousands of streets. And there can be hundreds of square miles within a city and its suburbs. Obviously, it is not practical to create an article on every single street." Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I would support a merge to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri. I've given it a good start, with a model of how it can be completed. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge - Some of these streets are very notable and form some of the primary roads in downtown St. Louis, which used to be one of the largest cities in the world (so I'm sure that plenty of historical sources could be found on the history of these streets). I like Mandsford's idea above about merging the streets for now into the St. Louis streets article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Limeisneom (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge all to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri per above and per precedent. When notability is established on a particular location (Carr Street should probably be relisted separately from the other ones, which clearly have not demonstrated any notability), then an individual article can be created. Nothing is really lost this way, and it is consistent with the principle of establishing WP:GNG before mass-producing articles. Mandsford (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merger would be reasonable pending detailed work on each individual street. The notability of the streets as a general topic may be judged from the following sources which I have combed from the numerous possibilities. The straightforward street atlases have been excluded to highlight the sources which seem to provide good history and detail. Unfortunately none of the details seem readily available online but some St Louis resident may wish to find them in their libraries.
  • Charles C. Savage (1987), Architecture of the private streets of St. Louis
  • A walk in the streets of St. Louis in 1845, 1928
  • A. N. Milner (1898), General information: city streets St. Louis‎
  • Cory Allan Davis (2005), On these very streets: the automobile and the urban environment in St. Louis 1920-1930, University of Missouri-Columbia
  • Norman J. Johnston (1962), St. Louis and her private residential streets‎
  • Street Lighting in St. Louis, Civic League Of Saint Louis, 1908
  • Earl B. Morgan (1908), Street pavements in St. Louis‎
  • ‎William B. Magnan (1994), Streets of St. Louis: An Entertaining History of St. Louis Street Names
  • Andrew D. Young; Ray Gehl; Mark D. Goldfeder (2002), Streets & streetcars of St. Louis: a sentimental journey‎
  • Andrew Hurley (1999), Streets and neighborhood history: a handbook for researchers in St. Louis‎, St. Louis. Public Policy Research Centers
  • Virginia Nester (1991), Streets of St. Louis, Mo: avenues through time‎
  • Oscar Newman; Frank J. Wayno (1974), The privatization of streets in St. Louis: its effect on crime and community stability, National Science Foundation (U.S.)
  • William H. Bryan (1894), The street railways of St. Louis
  • McCune Gill (1920), The streets of St. Louis

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete/Merge All A street in a major city is absolutely not automatically notable. Split them off from the list once there's actually enough info to warrant one. Reywas92 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete All Except Carr. These can all be deleted under speedy criteria: they make no claim of notability for their topic. There should be no bar to recreation if the new article can be brought up to the quality of St. Charles Rock Road. Abductive (reasoning) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge for now with the possible exception of the better-sourced Carr Street article. Aside from this one case there's no evidence of notability at present, although recreation is a possibility if and when notability is proven for the others. One possible merge destination would be something along the lines of List of named streets in St. Louis. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be happy to do the actual merger if no-one else does. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After 2 relistings, I consider the sources Abductive has just pointed to as sufficient to settle the issue. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation for Educational Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete We have two references. One is a link to an article about Patrick Byrne, which contains a couple of brief mentions of the Foundation for Educational Choice. The other is link to an item from the Toronto Star which is available on a pay-for view basis, but the abstract is written in the first person by a director of the foundation, and looks more like a letter to the editor or something similar than like an article. My searches for the Foundation for Educational Choice have produced mainly the organisation's own site, Knowledge, facebook, youtube, blogspot, and pages from organisations promoting a particular political position and including the foundation as part of this promotion. Nothing at all that I have found looks like significant coverage in a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Of the references which Eastmain has added two are press releases from the foundation, and so are of no value at all in establishing notability. One is about a fund raising dinner for the foundation, and looks more like an advertising piece than an objective report. The one remaining reference given by Eastmain is a report on a campaigning rally, which gives one brief mention of the foundation for educational choice as one of the organisations "sponsoring" the rally. By no stretch of the imagination can these references be considered to be significant coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a little better than any of the other references given so far. It refers to "research" issued jointly by the foundation and another organisation. However, it is one single news item covering one event, and that event is a publication by a campaigning group of information promoting its point of view. That is what campaigning groups do: we need more than one occasion when they managed to get a news report mentioning one of their publications if we are to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  10:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

British Sequence Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Dance competition with no clear notability. Only primary sources (those of the organizers and those of the individual competitors) are used in the article, and Google comes up with nothing of note. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 03:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - As the national championship event it is clearly a noteworthy encyclopedia reference. Secondary sources have been provided in the form of journals, and regional newspaper references, you just needed to give me a little more time! Hopefully this should satisfy the rules, and I can continue to complete this information source. (Lbu98mlb (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

*Merge to Blackpool Dance Festival, where this can be covered in better context, and redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) - The Blackpool Dance Festival is a separate event, which does not include Sequence Dancing.

  • Keep Good spread of secondary sources to improve the articles notability. Article is well linked to other articles in the category. Good historical reference of the National champions in this country. Swj8307 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  10:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is a huge, inappropriate list of winners and runners-up. Coverage is confined to offline specialized media. I searched Google News by "Sequence Dancing" and surnames of the most recent winners and found nothing. I searched by "Sequence Dancing Championship" and "Sequence Dance Championship" and found nothing. The British press is usually very keen on publishing material on such topics. Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Article clearly has reliable sources, independant of the subject as per Wikipedias own notability guidelines. Why would a list of winners of a national title be innappropriate? Clearly this is the sort of item which is worthy of entry. Great care has been taken to source the information and find appropriate citations. Lbu98mlb (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for not being familiar with the numerous rules. Whilst it is clear that I am a new user, I have read the articles on notability and have clearly provided many references, which was the earlier criticism. Regional news articles and published books in my mind, do not constitute 'specialized media'. Perhaps you should read the guidelines on Wikietiquette. Lbu98mlb (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I find the references insufficient. That's how these AfDs go; people make statements and the closing admin weighs them. There is no need to rebut every statement. Abductive (reasoning) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Engine Advertising (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Not clear how this book meets notability guidelines. No references to reliable sources provided. Title makes finding references extremely difficult. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Autobiography of non-notable artist with very little secondary source coverage that I could find. I only found a single mention in his local paper. Gigs (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. However, a merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0  00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an ill defined list that has been split into two tables in an attempt to downplay some bans that are not gouging but "contact with the eye or eye area". As shown in talk page, there is no such offence as eye gouging in the laws and regulations only contact with the eye or eye area. No other lists of players banned for other offences exists and the ill defined nature of what should be included or not makes limits the usefulness of this page. noq (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

*Delete as per nom. There is actually no offence of gouging making the whole topic very difficult to define. I would suggest reintroducing this as a category of players banned for making contact with the eye area and just categorising articles of players who have been sanctioned. GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment:Would you suggest creating categories for players banned for other reasons as well? noq (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm really only suggesting this as a compromise, I suppose the other obvious ones would be players banned for really serious things like stamping and on a wider basis for taking performance enhancing drugs. I'm not saying this is something that should be done just a something taht could be done. As this articles shows, these things are really difficult to categorise. What are your thoughts? GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well As I said in my keep comment, would he oppose to just having the "gouging" table inccluded and have the "contact with eyes table" removed, which I'll support as I fail to see any reason why the whole article should be deleted because of one table. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, as discussed on the talk page, theres actually no offence on its own of gouging so it would be better to go for eye contact. GainLine ♠ ♥ 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to go with that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Before this becomes a WP:SNOW, the article is well sourced and, as with List of people banned from Major League Baseball, it's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the article's creator userfy this, and look toward bringing it back under the less controversial title of "List of players banned from rugby union", and make this part of that article. I'm sure that there are other reasons that players have been banned, besides the unsportsmanlike (and potentially injurious) practice that has historically been part of the game. Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Lots of players are banned for one reason or another. A general list of everyone banned would get very large very quickly. The big problem I have is that there is no good definition of gouging - the sporting authorities do not use the term and the 2nd table that has been added is a symptom of this problem. It is there because a lot of the names on it are claimed not to be gouging cases by some editors. The argument for this is the sanctions were not for gouging but contact with the eye or eye area and only the media have described it as gouging, however this applies to all cases. If someone can come up with an agreed criteria for inclusion then the list could be worthwhile. Until that happens it is an arbitrary list of bans for what may or may not be gouging depending on your personal opinion. noq (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the title should refer to "eye contact", since it's forbidden in any sport for one player to put any part of his hand into any part of the eye sockets of another, whether it's the classic "poke-in-the-eye" or the more violent gouging of the eye. It kind of reminds me of the time I mentioned that someone's relative had been imprisoned and they quickly corrected me by saying, "No, he was in jail!" Mandsford (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And I just remembered what eye contact means, silly me-- that would make for a great penalty I guess. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep I've done a total rework to try rescue this article by doing the following:-
  • Very strong definition of the offence as taken from Rule 10.4 and Appendix 1 of Reg 17 of the International Rugby Boards Laws and Regs. As there is no offence of gouging, I've defined it as the IRB do.
  • Explained that despite media reporting offences as gouging, the IRB only has levels if seriousness for contact with eye/eye area.
  • Defined criteria for inclusion to be only incidents from top level competitions.
  • Merged the list to reflect there is only one offence.
  • Renamed the article to List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent to reflect the newly defined content of the article.

GainLine ♠ ♥ 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Well done on the improvements, particularly the link to the regulations. I'm sorry that you've had to change the title to something awkward, but it does reflect the exact phrasing used by the International Rugby Board regulations. We'll leave the "what does 'eye' specifically mean?" questions to the player's union barristers. Mandsford (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
cheers, not hundred percent happy with the title but it does remove ambiguity, am open to suggestions GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift, have you actually looked at the article before making your decision? It has been renamed and improved since it was nominated. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources are quite good, so I see little reason to delete outright. An expanded list covering other sorts of bans may be preferable in some ways but would be much harder to manage and may well end up being split back into component parts such as this one. As such, keeping this seems to be the best course of action as I can't see that it violates any policies. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard T. Snodgrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fit WP:NOTE dj (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep The relevant criterion must be WP:PROF, item 1, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Snodgrass is very well known for his work on temporal databases, and a Google Scholar search for his name shows numerous citations. The author of the article has computed H- and G-index values here and they look convincing to me. Favonian (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also, as the article notes, he has been an ACM Fellow since 1999. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be a total lack of third party swources establishing notability. In fact the only source that does not appear to have been writen by him is his Biog on the university he works for (and thus is harldey third party), nor does it establish notability. I can find no news referances for him, and most of the scholerly material seems to be by him, not about himk.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This is actually why Knowledge has separate guidelines regarding the notability of academics, WP:PROF. According to them, it is for instance sufficient if the person in question is recognized by the scientific community as demonstrated by citations in scientific publications or by fellowship in a major scholarly society, which are the two conditions Snodgrass meets. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - that doesn't excuse the lack of independent sources and the abuse of primary sources. Someone notable in academia will get recognition from independent institutes in one form or another.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and Snodgrass has that recognition, in the form of the ACM Fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion? The consensus seems to be Keep Or Strong keep.

Also some of these refer to works he has edited, and writen with others. We will have to establish which works source only his work.Slatersteven (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Criteria 1 needs to be demonstrated thru RS that he has had an impact, I see no where it saying anything about being cited (which by the way could only apply to work it can be demonstrated he has writen) Criteria 2 does ACM meets this , is it a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association?. acan be asked of ACM TODS, is it a major journel?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Google scholar finds over 500 reliable sources each (other papers that cite Snodgrass' work) for the impact of his top-cited publications on temporal databases. That is the standard way we measure academic impact. As for ACM Fellow, yes it does — ACM is the main research organization for computer scientists and becoming an ACM Fellow is very far from easy; it's exactly the sort of thing that WP:PROF #3 was intended to describe. As for ACM Transactions on Database Systems, it's been around for 35 years and it had the highest possible ranking in the "CORE" listing of computer science journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some sources that back uo the claim that ACM is a major body, and that becoming a fellow of it (It seems tyhat even students can become members). Same for the mmagazine, can we hace some sources noting its notability please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Becoming a member of ACM is easy, and there are at present 92,000 of them. Becoming a fellow is much harder, which is why there are a measly 675, something like 0.7%. As for the notability of the journal, have a look at the references in the TODS article. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The TODS article has three references, one being a book by Prof Snodgrass. CORE is a list of journals that members of publish in as such its hardly independent; also there is no indication as to what it is rated for. The other source says that it was only the highest in those in the study, not exactly saying its highly regarded. As I have said we need some independent third party sources that actually say that this is more then just the best we have looked at. As to his fellowship, well he is as notable as 675 other people, but this still doe not establish that ACM fellowship is a bench mark of excellence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a slam dunk. The enormous citation base to his work is sufficient (GS h-index seems to be around 25): it is independent, verifiable, as well as being conclusive proof of impact. This indeed is the long-established standard test of WP:PROF #1, which the subject conspicuously satisfies. ACM Fellow would also be a pass (as would "Fellow"-level election in any of the main scientific societies). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Question Some of the GS (I assume you mean Google search) are hits for work he has published. As to the rest (this is the question) as he is either the editor (not the author) or it is joint work, much of the referancing may not appply to his work alone, as such does this mean that it fails criteria 1?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, no. We don't usually do this level of joint-author hair-splitting in this forum. The basic problem is that it is almost always impossible to conclusively dissect the individual contributions to a research result and then apportion impact accordingly. While we have had some cases where a claim of research contribution was clearly exaggerated, I think our general practice here is attribute the impact of a paper (i.e. citations) to a scientist if his/her name is in the author list. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
  • It is reasonable to distinguish between works the person has authored and works the person has edited but not authored. The highly-cited works in Snodgrass's oevre seem to be authored, though. As for picking out co-author contributions, it's not really possible in this case because many of his publications appear to be using the convention of alphabetized author lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But doies not notability say that some one has to be idependantly notable? Sokme one is not notable becasue they (for example) belong to a good team, but becasue they are a notable member of that team?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This to me is strong evidence that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and haven't even looked at the Google scholar results people keep citing. Three of the four publications with over 500 cites are single-authored. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Do forgive me but there is only one link in Goggle scholar that I can find here on this page. It does not seem to me to show over 500 citations from works he has published. I might be missing them, could you provvide a link to one (or even two) I bleive that this is what I have been asking for all along. Also I have looked here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4132448053759008641&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 so far all the documents I have checked do not source his sole work (one does list only him, but as an editor only), So I re-iterate my request for a couple of source that indicate that he (on his own merits) is sourced pleasse.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's the link. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No this is a link to works that contain his name, not works that source him in his own right. Two this is a google search result, not a source. this does not provide a source that sources Prof Snodgrass in his own right, its google scholar perhaps but still a search result. Moreover this says 112 not 500. So I shall ask again please provide a scholerly document (book or articel) that source work produced soley by Prof Snodgrass.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, obviously I need to be more pedantic here. It's not a list of works that contain his name, it's a list of works that he himself has written; that's what the "author:" in the search string means. And do you see the little link "cited by 672" under the first publication returned by the search link? That link goes to 672 other publications, mostly by other people, that refer to this particular work of Snodgrass. Similarly the link "cited by 664" etc under the second entry, etc. Google scholar itself may not be a reliable source in the sense that we use it in Knowledge, but many of those citations likely are, and the sheer number of them is strong evidence of the academic impact of his works, of the type that we use all the time in deletion discussions such as this one. I don't see the number 112 on the search page I linked to, so I don't know what you mean by that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This thread seems to be heading in the direction of WP:BAIT. The information above conclusively demonstrates notability, so we could probably just leave it at that. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
I have asked for claificiation on whether this established notability on RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It's nice to have a smart article among all the dumb ones in Knowledge. WP:PROF isn't quite as broad as the inherent notability that we give for professional athletes. I think that it's great that the University of Arizona football season gets in-depth coverage 2009 Arizona Wildcats football team, 2008 Arizona Wildcats football team, etc., but I've heard that that universities also have people who do things, like research and teaching and book publishing. Granted, it's not as much of a contribution to society as taking the Wildcats to a bowl game, but university professors sometimes do notable things too. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But he has to have been notable to be notable. So does he meet the criteria, so far all we have is some referancing to work that is not soley his and a claim that he si a amber of a notable socirty (whith out any apparent proof its notable). If he is notable enough to have an articel thyen it should not prove hard to find sources to back up claims of independant notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vk2010 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Please see the references that I have added. Every piece of information now has a reference.

To be a bit more precise, according to this list there are some 140 computer scientists "better" than Snodgrass, when it comes to the h-index. Not too shabby ;) Favonian (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The PSP Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor support group in the UK. No assertion of coverage by reliable sources, and Google News returns only press releases and a few false positives. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The PSP Association needs coverage and promotion, and so i am helping by using Knowledge. I can find more sources after finding out from the organisation. Look at the links below before deleting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/content/articles/2008/04/14/psp_feature.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/461557.stm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/expert_advice/article398627.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article5332770.ece http://pspeur.org http://www.justgiving.com/psp

Consider the importance of promoting this charity.
Except that Knowledge is not in the business of promoting charities. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge may not be for promoting, however i would like to use it to promote, by detailing a wider community with information on this charity. Please do not delete this page because many charities have it, and they must start as minor charities, to become major ones. As you can see, i have the sources to back up the content on THE PSP ASSOCIATION page.

You say,
  1. Knowledge may not be for promoting, however i would like to use it to promote: In other words, you want to use Knowledge for something it wasn't meant for.
  2. Please do not delete this page because many charities have it, and they must start as minor charities, to become major ones: And they must become major charities, or at least notable ones before Knowledge can have articles on them.
  3. As you can see, i have the sources to back up the content on THE PSP ASSOCIATION page: The sources above do not mention the PSP Association anywhere. However, they would be good to use on the Association's home page to show that the association is indeed working for a worthy cause.
You are trying to use a Knowledge article to build notoriety for the association. The problem is that the notability you intend to achieve through Knowledge must be achieved before the Knowledge article is created. See WP:NOBLECAUSE. -- Blanchardb -- timed 13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can say that the sources DO state 'The PSP Association'. However, if Knowledge does not agree to this page, i will comment no further.

There are only trivial references to the Association. These articles are all about the disease. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wavecom. Favoring merge and redirect over delete since this seems like a potential search term. No prejudice to splitting it off again later if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Open AT OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD-G11. Two editor and IP commented that it appeared to be "spammy" or an ad in edit summaries or talk page. Not notable software, no verifiable or reliable sources listed, all appear to be self-published. GNews shows what appear to be press releases, but no other coverage. IP contesting CSD stated on talk page that there are few to no sources for the software, and that it needs to be here to get the information out. GregJackP (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep One Editor and the above user feel that the article is "spammy", its a very notable OS if your in the very small field of people working with micro-controllers and GSM modems. As I said before this is not MS Windows, your not going to find much on this OS other than the data from the vendor, but it is widely used in GPS and Asset Tracking hardware- as such its a great note on the history and evolution of this OS.. I will work to edit the article because to be honest this is the one place with all that data delivered in such a clean manner- I already pulled the adish wording out, contrary to GregJackP- I still dispute putting something as harsh as the CSD G11 Tag on the article. Just because you dont know what the article is about, and you dont work in embedded electronics- does not mean its not noteworthy. Please see the article discussion page for more info- give this thing a chance, its not that hard to clean up... in fact I think I have already cleaned most of the ad-like stuff, but not being a professional wiki-writer I cannot fully judge the neutrality of the article, I can tell you it does not read like an AD at this point.

Also take a look at some of the other Real Time OS'es see- http://en.wikipedia.org/THEOS VERY few sources document this OS, but it is notable and important- at least for a guy like me who reads these articles.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment: Please do not rearrange people's comments. There is no need to separate arguments whereby "Keep" goes in one sectionm and "delete" in another, and choices other than keep or delete do not go in a category called "Does not want..." Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Mandsford was unsure of how to format this so its easily readable, its not like the UI is great for new users- thanks for the cleanup. 64.207.236.42 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome-- things like this have happened to me before too. Mandsford (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - to clarify some misinformation, two editors (myself and JzG indicated that the article had problems from being spammy, and a third (an IP - 76.117.247.55) stated it was an ad - three separate evaluations of the same problem.
  • The difference with THEOS is that it is apparently notable, although unreferenced in the Knowledge article. There are multiple GBook hits that reference THEOS compared to zero for Open AT OS. Similar results when you look at GScholar/GNews hits - a number for THEOS, none for Open AT OS. That is the reason that Open AT OS is up for deletion, and THEOS is not - even if it were relevant to this discussion, which it is not. The article was nominated for deletion because I can find no verifiable, reliable sources that support its inclusion in Knowledge. Without such references, it does not merit an entry and should be deleted. (GregJackP (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
Hmm, thats not what I got, here is a quick sample query-
There are industry hits- they may not be impressive or in english but they are there- and thats without digging, thats just properly structuring a boolean query on google. -yes I know the "AND" is implied.
Like I said this is not a desktop OS hence very few articles will exist on it, what do you want- and O'Rilly's book on it? Because that will never happen this is not a consumer OS.
Do you want more links?
72.192.83.115 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (The same user as the 64.207 IP for those wondering)
  • Reply Firstly, the answer to "Do you want more links?" is "No thank you. If these are typical of what you can supply then there is no point in giving more". I have checked every one of the links given and, in the cases where the links were to Google searches, I have followed up at least the first page of hits. Many of the pages I found are not independent, but either Wavecom publications, press releases, download sites providing Open AT, an advertisement for a commercial product using Open AT, or other non-independent sources. Some of the pages were not reliable sources (e.g. the Knowledge article on Wavecom, etc). Many of the pages give only passing mention to Open AT. In short, although I found an impressive number of pages mentioning Open AT, I found nothing at all that indicated notability by Knowledge's criteria. The fact that it is "not a consumer OS" is irrelevant for two reasons. Firstly there are thousands of Knowledge articles on topics which are not aimed at consumers or the general public, but which have perfectly good references to more technically-oriented sources: if Open At is notable the same can happen here. Secondly, if there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources then the topic does not satisfy Knowledge's notability criteria, no matter what the reason for that lack of coverage. The notability guideline says that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and does not go on to say "unless it has not received such coverage because it is an obscure technical topic that most people aren't expected to want to read about". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent sources cited in the article, and, despite efforts shown above, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources shown here either, nor found by my searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Thats fine looks like wikipedia is so bloody bureaucratic now that you have taken what could be the most vast consortium of encyclopedic data and converted it to a litigious stream pointless arguments about why you should delete data, after looking at some of the other articles its clear wikipedia has no set standard, or that the standard is always changing- I have even found groups that pride themselves on deleting data, sure there is a lot of spam, but I have found a number of great articles deleted by groups like http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians You know its incredible, we have an OS here that has legitimate industry use and the OS is well documented here- since you all seem to be lawyers looking for a reason to kill this, first it was an AD, then it was not notable, no it does not have enough sources. Oddly the AD issue was fixed and the notable issue was fixed- I know wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this is not foretelling anything- the lack of data is because this OS is rare- very few people work with it, but it goes into some rather important products.So you have two choices, be logical and keep the article- or be a lawyer and look for small things you can pick at to remove this article, despite the fact that it covers some rare data that is used by an entire subset of embedded developers. I bet if I knew wiki-law I could make this much more fun, sadly I don't care enough to learn wiki-law or even create a user name and this is the reason why- the developers of this site for the most part seem to revel in squabbles over stupid wiki-law, common sense no more. This is my last post, IP OUT

64.207.236.42 (talk)

  • Delete. Contrary to the press releases, Knowledge is not meant to be the sum of all human knowledge, not even the sum of all useful knowledge. Only that knowledge that has independent coverage in reliable sources gets a page here. So, if anyone wants to know more about this OS, they'll have to deal with the proprietary manuals, and little blurb in the company's article, Wavecom. That's the way things are. Pcap ping 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm using it myself right now during a hardware programming course at university and wanted to get some information about it. I know that this is not an argument for keeping an article, it also hardly supports it's notability though. But then again, embedded OSes of this kind are not a very popular theme in the mass media anyway, also keep in mind which links you might break by deleting a two year old article.
    Please point out what exactly you find spammy about this article and maybe rewrite that. --Mewtu (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wavecom; does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Grabowski Prize. Arbitrarily0  00:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

No coverage in secondary sources that I could locate. Awards won are minor and not notable; does not meet the academic notability guidelines. Gigs (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  00:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Colin P Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject may be somewhat notable, but this isn't immediately confirmed via google search. In addition, there are very few incoming links and the primary editor and creator of the page seems to be the article's topic. Further, some of the edit notes appear to imply WP:OR. (On a lesser note, shouldn't it be "Colin P. Flynn", if this is really to remain?) — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete h-index about 30 (cited under "CP Flynn", google scholar) This seems high, but he has had a long career so it's not too unusual. The main issue is a lack of secondary source coverage. I could not locate any biographical coverage. Without biographical coverage, this article can never meet WP:V and should be deleted, regardless of whether it meets WP:ACADEMIC which is a fundamentally flawed guideline. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. WoS query "Author=(Flynn CP) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV ILLINOIS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows at least 213 publications having an enormous citation base: 161, 153, 139, ... (h-index > 30). This is a slam dunk – citations to this body of work are indeed independent (of the subject), verifiable, and proof of impact (in this case, quite enormous impact). Evidently also an APS fellow. Any issues with the content of the article can be handled with edits. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
    • Citations can't provide source material to write a biographical article. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • They conclusively prove impact and thus notability, which is the only reason we're here. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "snow" motion pretty soon because even this cursory examination shows that this person is in the top tier of scientists. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
        • WP:V is a policy. Impact without coverage is irrelevant. Gigs (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, I believe we're all aware of that, thanks. Your line of argument seems to be that the body of his published science lit that, at the very least, attests that he's a professor at a university and has contributed results in a particular area is not WP:RS because he wrote it. I think that's a dead-end because these publications are vetted in a peer-reviewed forum and published in mainstream venues rather than being something like a blog or vanity piece. Pretty sure this will end in "keep" – all the time I can afford to devote to this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep per Agricola. Ray 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep citation prove notability under the basic WP:PROF criterion, of having a major impact on the field. Citations quite specifically measure impact--people whose work is not important do not get cited. There is a wide grey area where it can be argued whether the citations are sufficient, but this is totally above that. The one's work becomes less notable if one has a long career is a novel argument--non notable people tend to do just the opposite, produce a few papers early on and are never heard from subsequently. Nor in a field like his do most articles go on accumulated citations for decades--only a very few do, and that would generally be for what is considered a classic article; some of his papers seem to be in that category. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It is a well documented flaw in h-index that people who have had longer careers will have higher scores, and those who made an impact in a short amount of time will have lower scores. My argument to delete is not based on h-index though, it's based on the complete lack of reliable biographical sources independent of the subject thus far. Gigs (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. What am I missing here? I find nothing relevant when I google search this. What are you "keep"ers using as search terms to find relevance? — Timneu22 · talk 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears that Gigs is using Google scholar, while Agricola44 is using Web of Science. WoS is subscription-only, while GS is free, and different subjects are served better by one or the other of them, but both are more suitable than plain old Google for finding citations by academics to the works of other academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I reduced the article down to a stub because it was almost entirely copied from Flynn's web site. I did some searches to try to expand it back out again, but had difficulty finding much to say about him. For instance, he claims to be a fellow of the American Physical Society, but I looked at the APS's archive of fellowships 1995-present and didn't see his name. Maybe it means there's a false claim somewhere, maybe it means only that his fellowship was pre-1995, but regardless it also means that we have no independent verification to source that material. I'm convinced from the citation record that he passes WP:PROF, but we also need to have some verifiable content with reliable third-party sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, G1 — Timneu22 · talk 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Prod contested with the rationale, This is a valid game that I've played with multiple people in the past. Still fails WP:MADEUP. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ni Tien Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This martial arts school does not have coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article itself appears to be written by somebody with a close association with the school. Whpq (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district special election, 2010. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0  00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Unelected politician - fails WP:POLITICIAN Codf1977 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But you agree then, that he does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN guidelines ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he does meet WP:POLITICIAN, which states:
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Due to the fact that this candidate does IMHO have significant coverage and is running in a special election which will draw national attention, much to the same as Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Wrightchr (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Scott Brown analogy doesn't apply as Brown is a state senator thus meeting notability criteria independently of the special election. Valenciano (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I'm running a WP:POV here. I'm fairly familiar with both candidates and will attempt to represent them equally and with coverage and with my editing time. To be honest, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the political POV of Critz and his opponent, Tim Burns. Wrightchr (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion because of copyright issues (WP:CSD#G12).

Lucchese boot company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. History section appears to be a cut-and-paste copyvio, although the source can't be identified. The whole article reads somewhat like an advertisement for the company. Searches fail to find any sources to support the notability of this company. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Gulf War. Shimeru (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming the Gulf War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discussion of alternate names for a 6 month-long war doesn't seem to merit an article on its own. This information should be merged into Gulf War. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with nom; clearly this page shouldn't exist. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge or incorporate somehow into Gulf War where appropriate. Wrightchr (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge: I'm not necessarily concerned about the notability of the names and naming rationales, but rather the thin sourcing. However, many of the refs on the main article do cover this topic (and others cover it incidentally by using the various names), so merging seems the best solution short of copying and duplicating much content. bahamut0013deeds 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge: This must have been one of my earliest articles. The two sources are other language version of the Gulf War article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Gulf War—there's no reason this shouldn't be in the parent article. Not significant enough to stand by itself. –Grondemar 22:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge - merits mention in Gulf War Tzu Zha Men (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge we have other name articles, and I hardly see why the length of the war matters. There has been controversy on the naming, and different names, with different origins. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - The gulf war was important, and its duration doesn't negate it. That said, there's nothing worthy of an article here, and why would a redirect be appropriate? This is not a plausible search term, and not apparently linked. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment(clarification) - I never said the Gulf War itself wasn't significant just because it was short, don't get hung up on that, guys. It just happens that 6 months is not a long time for alternative names to develop that are significant. Even when they do develop, the 4-year long First World War is also known as World War I, The Great War, and The War to End All Wars, yet there is not a separate article on the naming of that war. The point is, for the Gulf War, alternative names can easily be discussed in the main article. For Naming the American Civil War, for instance, this would not be the case, as there is much background between the different names for the war, and the article also discusses USA vs CSA names for specific battles, however, in an article like the Gulf War, where we can merge, we should. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Prod contested on the grounds that the concept is becoming notable. However, this search returns nothing of value that would confirm that Knowledge should indeed refer to this concept using this term. Fails WP:NEO. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • “The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion.” Faciomúsica Coadunatio is a noumenon similar to The Long Tail in it's application to online business with regard to Digital distribution that is a driving force behind current artists in the digital age. The term is derived from the Latin words “facio” meaning “fashion”, “musica” meaning “music”, and “coadunatio” meaning “a uniting”. So it can be called a neologism yet is an abstract concept. Jeremy Wineberg of Invisible DJ, who takes credit for “The Music Tee” says, it “combines digital music and fashion in one eye-and-ear-catching package” . I postulate that this is the term for the original idea regardless of Fenn being the first documented source. If this is not the proper term, do you have a suggestion? If not, please allow this article to stay as the term is used by insiders. Keep or Merge. Spencer Rothchild (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If the Fenn interview is the only documentation available to describe the concept itself, then I'm afraid the concept fails our notability guidelines, and thus cannot be described in Knowledge, except in individual articles about those who engage in this practice, and yet without giving the practice a name. -- Blanchardb -- timed 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuzzy Logic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. The only thing close is the Balcony TV nomination, but I don't believe this classifies as "major".

Was originally PRODded, but removed by an IP. Oli Filth 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Theme Time Radio Hour: Hello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a sequence of individual radio show episode pages which is largely redundant to the episode list in Theme Time Radio Hour Season Two. For example, the track listing for this episode already appears here. I would support either redirecting this page, or merging all the episodes in to a single list of episodes for the season. Plastikspork ―Œ 13:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most, if not all, of them can be merged or redirected, you can find a complete list by performing a prefix search. Rather than tag them all, I thought I would start here. Plastikspork ―Œ 13:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Why bother with an RfD? The re-directs are useful, I can't see why they would be deleted. I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In any event, there is no need to discuss this here. Sorry for wasting your time. Plastikspork ―Œ 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 South Texas earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and that this has an articel here 2010 Texas earthquake which is also up for deletion, so this may in fact be a fork. There appears to be no reason why this eqarthquake is more notable then any other magnitude 4.0 in Texas or elsewhere Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There would be nothing wrong with writing a general article about earthquakes in Texas. Atypical events can, collectively, be the subject of a Knowledge article, such as List of snow events in Florida. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Autobiographical article about a very smart person who's published a couple of papers and a book in a specific scientific field, and also plays a game quite well, but I'm not seeing enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PROD'd twice, once in 2007 and once today, so I've followed the procedure and moved it to AFL. Reason given was Abandoned temp article? Possibly still a copyvio. I think it fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:NB as I can't find any independent reviews of the book. The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - I just added a bunch of refs on it's talk page. Newspaper stories, references from several religions and in various police and related journals international and I've not exhausted web searches. Smkolins (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You added news articles? If you did, they are not showing up. I removed a link as it was dead. When adding references, make sure you actually add them. Mr. C.C.I didn't do it! 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I added them to the talk section. I didn't have time to integrate the references. I thought if the debate included referencing the talk page then people would take that into account. Smkolins (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I added "FrontPageMagazine.com." and the "Press release" which was published in a newspaper. Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've now added a few more :nzherald.co.nz., Dominion Post, Thaindian News. Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment just to reply to this - I know. The when I put it in it wasn't dead. Now it seems they didn't just take down the page but the whole domain the server was running on. Nor was it kept in archive.org though other parts were. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is quite a mess. The talk page seems to be a duplicate of the original article. Several of the references on the talk page are of dubious value and at least one is a mirror of the article. The article itself is missing appropriate references. It may be a valid document but at this point I don't see it as notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I agree the article is not what it should be. As the primary editor who created the article all I can say is that I was distracted by the source - I've been working in wikipedia for years and hardly seen anything of the kind (and the inter-religious warfare in wikipedia could learn no little bit from such a work - I once tried to clean a religion and racism article which was the target of endless feuding and it re-degenerated.) The talk page was an attempt to fix the article and if you compare the histories you'll see the original article was much different than the talk aspect. I thought I checked for circular referencing in the sources I just posted this morning but if I made a mistake just note it. Or point it out to me and I'll note it on the talk page. I thought I trimmed out dubious sources but I'd welcome instruction on appropriateness. I thought newspapers and journal refs were sufficient for notable sources. Smkolins (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind merging if the end result of concensus is that it doesn't deserve and article of it's own. Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - this is exactly an example of when police might be able to bring informed treatment of religious communities. As for references I found some. It wasn't even that hard. An example
Some Reflections on Reported Crime Rates in the Chinese and Vietnamese Communities in Australia which is the lead article in the Journal of Asian Association of Police Studies Asian Policing, Volume 4. Number 1. September 2006, by Dr Wing Hong Chui School of Social Science The University of Queensland & Dr Peter White School of Social Work and Social Policy The University of Queensland, and it was mentioned by members of Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Wiccan, and Shinto organizations or individuals primarily through statements in news agencies. The last reference,

Social cohesion in Australia by James Jupp, J. P. Nieuwenhuysen, Emma Dawson and published by Cambridge University Press, 2007 refers to the organization which published and distributed 50,000 copies of the first edition along with comments (if google books will let you read it.) And New Zealand's police force development a similar work based on the same kind of effort which is also detailed in the references I found. Smkolins (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. The fact that a publication is a reference work distributed to police is not enough to qualify as notable per WP:BK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've redone the page dramatically and included several references including it being picked up in the literature of police forces internationally and much other further work. Perhaps more to come but I've got other things to do now. Smkolins (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that the New Zealand publication should be considered an "edition" of this Australian publication as this article now says, as opposed to being a different publication which happens to cover similar themes? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - As for the language of the New Zealand publication being an edition of the Australian works I don't see a problem in the language but editors are free to make improvements. I called it a publication and then speak of New Zealand's edition (as they make a point of calling the publication the "1st edition". There are also notes about a revised edition of the New Zealand publication. Additionally there is an overlap in the development history between the Australian and New Zealand works. The acknowledgement section states "New Zealand Police gratefully acknowledge the support of the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau (www.apmab.gov.au). Their provision of a number of photographs and text on which to base the New Zealand version of this publication is greatly appreciated." Smkolins (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the policy that applies Knowledge:Notability_(books) this is clearly a government publication - of the available choices it seems closes to an academic publication (though not identical.) All editions seem to be missing an ISBN, but it's listed in the national library and in several specialized libraries and has affected or been referenced in several branches and divisions of Australian government (from the court system through to the military as well as subsequent committee work on revisions to laws.) Knowledge:Notability_(academics) is difficult to apply because it's entirely geared to individual professors. But the idea communicated, it seems to me, is the question of reach of impact. I've noted the publications reach across government departments and branches as well as countries and the professional literature of the field. Smkolins (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Look like the consensus is to delete.... There was some comment to move content to the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau article - that ok? Smkolins (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Knowledge:Guide to deletion, which is linked to from the AfD template in the article, "AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes", so no, it's not OK. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The article has changed a great deal since the beginning. Perhaps if people took a second look at it more would be inclined to merge rather than just delete. Or even keep.Smkolins (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Echoing the sentiments of Smerdis of Tlön, since when do police provide "customer service?" They are police not human resource people, public relations people, or courtesy clerk providers at Wal-Mart. I am still having trouble finding nobility on this text as a whole. Mr. C.C.I didn't do it! 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
'Comment - consider how the military has to take into account norms of societies they themselves have gone to in order to convey a sense of being supportive and interested in their welfare. Consider neighborhood policing. Does that make this more relevant? Smkolins (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, inherent WP:NPOV violation as author's personal preference list. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Teen Books to Read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Great Teen Books

to Read|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Good faith page creation but unfortunately it's unencyclopedic and a good candidate for what wikipedia is not. WP:OR as well. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - There are some strange interactions between the creator of this page, and another new account (User:Truncated for performance reasons) that's been making some disruptive edits. Both accounts created at the same time, one of them's talking to the other, and they're both on this article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Non notable person, whose only claim to fame is political organizing and once having run an unsuccessful campaign for state legislative office (meaning he fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN). It also appears to largely have been written by Mr. Dane himself. Lincolnite (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete: Mr. Dane is not only a political activist but a boxing promoter and has changed policy in Nevada. His detractors, has worked hard to make sure that Dane doesn't receive any notability at all. But to Dane's credit he is referenced on other Wiki pages. Note: similar text, from same author, repeated below.

  • Delete. Self promotion, plus many others. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. Dane has been a part of Nevada Politics for over 10 years, he has also made news as a boxing promoter. Dane's detractors work to keep his name out of the news and has failed continuously. As far as Dane's contribution to Boxing those references were deleted and I've since re-submitted them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderoffacts (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — Finderoffacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Closing admin please note: the above editor is a single-purpose account whose only edits have been to this article/AfD, and whose turns of phrase seem remarkably similar to the article's eponymous contributor. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've found coverage from CBS, another story from the Las Vegas Sun, and this from the Las Vegas Review Journal, none of which are in the article.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak(ish) Delete. The nature of the coverage Dane seems to receive is that the majority of it deals primarily with another topic, and then Dane is quoted or mentioned as an involved campaigner. I don't really see this as being significant coverage sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline, although it's close. I would also note that even if this article were to be kept, pretty much the only verifiable information about Dane contains examples of him soapboxing about homosexuality, which is going to make it practically impossible for this article to be both well-referenced and neutral.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failed local politician. Simply running for an office on a major party ticket gets you some coverage. None of it seems significant outside of the run of the mill "he's running and here's a little about the candidate" sort of junk. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anyone wishing to have the content userfied/incubated/etc. can contact me. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Karnan (malayalam film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HAMMER - Too early. Filming begins next month, release next year. Coverage appears to indicate the budget and, remarkably, a runtime... but doesn't appear to have coverage sufficient for a pre-release article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

No coverage at reliable sources found (GNews/Scholar/Books have 0 hits), current sources do not seem substantial enough -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

CredAbility.info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product; article written by company's managing director. Sources given are not signficant or independent ( looks like not much more than a press release rehash). Haakon (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:ORG. no significant third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David Sheffield Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not notable in PROF, not cited very much, not any sources about this person only RetroS1mone talk 06:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Many published articles and citations to Bells work comes up on Google scholar. Search "DS Bell" chronic fatigue syndrome for a start. He has also been recognized by national news articles for his work. among others. Ward20 (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton |  02:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

This person is not notable in PROF, their papers are not cited and they are not known RetroS1mone talk 05:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep The Fennell phases that she originated are the subject of, and have been validated by a number of published studies in chronic fatigue syndrome and have been referenced in many other studies and publications. Note there are several different ways of referencing her work and I don't know how to pick them all up on the one Google scholar search I ran. Ward20 (talk)
  • Keep: Passes WP:PROF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slam dunk delete, fails WP:PROF. Self-help businessperson with only one publication listed on PubMed, and she is the fifth of seven authors. MiRroar (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Shii (tock) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
AT&T Pogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vaporware, sources are dead links Shii (tock) 05:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bhakti Promoda Puri Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader - Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

First of all, as it stands now, this article is not a biography, but an article on the Eagle Creek Lodge. Regardless, I found no multiple, reliable sources to support the notability of either having an article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Retract nomination - it appears this was all a misunderstanding caused by a misspelling. When I search for the actual name, it turns up reliable sources. Sorry for the truble Electroshoxcure. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:NFT. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-contested CSD - at least the tags keep disappearing. Non-notable local sports tournament. GregJackP (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

*Note The speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP editor (65.23.255.80) who may or may not be the author of the article. The same IP editor also removed the AfD notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Practically nothing but quotes. This would be best as a redirect to Benjamin Franklin with a brief mention there, and the quotes moved to Wikisource. Woogee (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Children of Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

94–95 Four Song Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. However, a quick look at the article shows that he likely passes WP:ENTERTAINER. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not finding any reliable sources that actually cover him, not just mention him in passing. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure this article should be deleted. It is incomplete, but a quick check with IMDB reveals that the actor has quite a few credits not listed in the Wiki piece. I added the IMDB link, and will do a little more digging a bit later. Evalpor (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is the same Andrew McNee who is then also a stage actor, he may have the sourcability we require. Schmidt, 03:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This debate could have used a few more views but 21 days is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

This BLP is for a reality television show competitor of marginal notability. He has competed on more than one season of the Real World/Road Rules Challenge, but is not notable for anything beyond competing on that series. Other interesting comparisons could be made with Derrick Kosinski, who has appeared on more seasons of The Challenge, and also appeared on other reality shows other than the Challenge. Seems like it could be classified as WP:ONEEVENT, given that all appearances were on the same series. He ranks in the middle of the pack as far as competitors with multiple appearances on the Challenge. It was previously prodded, but the prod was removed, so I thought I would follow up with a nomination here. Plastikspork ―Œ 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - a search for sources turns up not just passing mention, but interviews in various publications (Dose Magazine, Sports Illustrated) and he has not just participated in a reality series, but has actually won...twice. It appears he just squeeks by WP:GNG, the article could use a clean-up however. Jezebel'sPonyo 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

From Which of This Oak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete True, demos are not guaranteed to be non-notable, but they can be assumed to be unless proven otherwise. So both comments are true. Since no one has demonstrated notability here... David V Houston (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Return of the Northern Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete True, demos are not guaranteed to be non-notable, but they can be assumed to be unless proven otherwise. So both comments are true. Since no one has demonstrated notability here... David V Houston (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of the Reaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete True, demos are not guaranteed to be non-notable, but they can be assumed to be unless proven otherwise. So both comments are true. Since no one has demonstrated notability here... David V Houston (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jayjg 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the Voice of Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marathi Buddhists from Maharashtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, highly specific list of people by religious affiliation Falcon8765 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List_of_iCarly_episodes. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ICarly: iQuit iCarly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "film" is actually one of several hour-long episodes of the iCarly series. It is otherwise undistinguished from the rest of the show's episodes. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided and I have not been able to find any either. Suggest redirect to listing of series' episodes. SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Completely unreferenced, mostly in-universe, no elaboration of real-world notability to speak of. Closedmouth (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - since when the quality of an article is a reason to delete it? The Horned King is of course a notable character, even the Disney version alone is notable, appearing in more media than The Black Cauldron. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • G10, G11, and G12 are all speedy deletion requirements that are only used based on the quality of an article. Not saying any of them apply here, but we definitely do take that into consideration sometimes. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There is lots of coverage of this character in numerous sources. For example, the Prydain companion has several pages devoted specifically to it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. The subject being covered in multiple reliable sources and in multiple books independent of the subject, allows a resonable presumption of real-world notability though its coverage in real-world sources. Yes, the article needs sourcing... but that current lack is a surmountable issue that does not require deletion, only improvement. Schmidt, 23:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The judy company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability is made, no significant references to 3rd party sources provided and I'm having trouble finding any myself (Google news search on the name brings up nothing). Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is about a geological engineering firm that apparently dates back to 1922. Actual name of the business is Judy Company, apparently. Google search seems to turn up false hits because of another Judy Company that apparently publishes children's books. Name of the founder, "Philip S. Judy", yields some book hits, but most of them are about an Illinois will contest, and may not be the right fellow. The patent applications involving filters for wells are probably more relevant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Article needs some trimming though. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable Slovenian painter. Eleassar 10:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added what sources I could find and incorporated them into the article. The article itself is still a mess, but I don't want to put much more effort into until I get a sense of how this AFD will go. I think she does just reach notability, passed on articles from RTC Slovenia and interviews with Auroville Radio. Please take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being per Nuujinn above and to give him the opportunity to work on the article. It's difficult to assess Slovenian sources, so if anyone knowledgeable on the subject can comment, I'm open to reconsider. Ty 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The hand-waving nomination needs to explain why the sources supplied are not satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment The article has undergone significant revision in terms of sourcing since the nomination. What I wish we could find would be some references establishing conferrance of some awards.--Nuujinn (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Nuujinn has made quite a lot of improvements. Sources seem to indicate notability. Dream Focus 10:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable Slovenian painter. Eleassar 10:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It is a Slovenian modern painter. I listed many of her exhibitions as a reference. Prunk (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed the deletion of the article you've created because I think it doesn't fit the WP:ARTIST criteria. IMO, none of the listed exhibitions qualify as 'significant'. Do they? --Eleassar 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The first link is independent, I'm not sure with the second one. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I added 4 additional references, one from Slovenian radio (Sora), and one from the main Slovenian newspaper (Dnevnik). -- Prunk (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not significant critical attention as requested by WP:ARTIST. These are merely anonymous mentions of her in the current what's going-ons and the invitation by anonymous web news article to her exhibition. --Eleassar 10:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed we need some critical coverage of her work, or at least some sources that indicate that she is A well respected artist.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lots of artists have lots of expositions--but here, I see no big exhibitions at major galleries or musea, and, worse, no discussion of the subject in reliable sources at all, only announcements, except for that one article from Sora. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • As regards Radio Sora, this is also only an announcement for a group exhibition where Irena Kazazić participated. --Eleassar
  • Comment In the article broadcasted on National Television in 2006, they write about her independant exhibition. She held more independant exhibitions after the year 2006 in privately owned galleries. But Eleassar I assume that you know that Slovenia doesn't have any big galleries, beside the Museum of Modern Art (Moderna galerija) - where she appeared in a group exhibition and The National Gallery (Narodna Galerija) - which is a gallery for non-modern artists in Ljubljana. She was present in most of the other galleries accross the country in independant and group exhibitions and also outside in Croatia, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Venice. -- Prunk (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable Slovenian painter. Eleassar 10:28, 20 April 2010 (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, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Marko Kumer – Murč (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a non-notable Slovenian stand-up comic writen by User:Komikaza (name of his group is Komikaze) for promotion. Eleassar 10:04, 20 April 2010 (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, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Contemporary cyclist racing at the amateur level. Fails WP:GNG and having never competed at the fully professional level or Olympics, fails WP:ATHLETE. Severo 09:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark W. Cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF, notability not established -- Flyguy649  03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are news articles about him. The article needs these sources but it should not be deleted. He was a professor, an academic department head, and assistant to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That should make him notable. MiRroar (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I have completely rewritten the article, straightened out the chronology and added references. Should pass notability now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. I have reviewed MelanieN's improvements; however, these are articles and books BY the individual, not about him. The WP:N notability guidelines require significant coverage OF the individual in reliable independent sources. (The nominator and other commentors should note that WP:N requires not that notability IS established, but that notability COULD be established. Being more careful in your choice of words leads to a higher-quality deletion debate.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete If there a more sources establishing notability then lets have them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've re-read the article based upon added refs but as noted they are all works that he published himself. If he's a Prof then his work should have been independantly reviewed and held in some esteem. It's just not apparent. So I have to stay with delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that one way to evaluate an academic is the number of times their work is cited by others at Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a little hard to evaluate because there are several men named Mark W. Cannon, but for this guy I find 32 citations for The makers of public policy, RJ Monsen, MW Cannon - 1965 - McGraw-Hill (12 under one version of the title and 20 under another); 11 for Administrative Change and the Supreme Court, MW Cannon - Judicature, 1973; 8 for Can the Federal Judiciary Be an Innovatative System?, MW Cannon - Public Administration Review, 1973 - jstor.org; 15 for Views from the Bench, MW Cannon, MOB David - 1985 - Chatham House Publ. Inc.; 16 for Interbranch Cooperation in Improving the Administration of Justice: A Major …, MW Cannon, WI Cikins - Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 1981; that's 67 citations in the just first two pages of Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Author of several books, From WorldCat, one of his books, Views from the Bench, is in 600 worldcat libraries. Another, The makers of public policy: is in over 700. Even so specialized a book of his as Urban government for Valencia, Venezuela is in over 100 (I was really surprised to see that one). Quite apart from the journal articles, that makes him a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to be mentioned quite often in books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. He only edited the book Views from the Bench: The Judiciary and Constitutional Politics, and the citations are to individuals authors within that book, such as Robert Bork. Being an administrative assistant should never be a claim to notability, unless it is accompanied by secondary sources, as with Traudl Junge. Geneva Steel was founded in 1944, belying the claim that he was a co-founder. That claim and the claim that he was chairman of the polisci dept of BYU is supported only by an article written by Mark W. Cannon! Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no convincing evidence that he passes WP:PROF (an edited volume is not research impact, and a department head even if verified is not a high enough administrative position). And being an assistant to someone famous is also not enough; notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to On_Fire_(Lil_Wayne_song). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Da Da Da (Lil Wayne song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. Contested redirect. B-side fails WP:NSONG completely. SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to the A-Side On Fire (Lil Wayne song) and Semi Protect the article beacause its always restored by New Users and users without Accounts. STAT- Verse 00:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. although it might be worth merging in the article on the product, especially as that article appears to be largely a barely-paraphrased copy of the company website pages on that subject. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete Is this company notable? The only sources cited are the company's own web pages, apart from one which shows that the software has been tested and nothing else. Searching produces mostly the company's own material again, with very little evidence of independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced BLP, makes a number of claims. DeProdded by IP with edit summary "kung fu master is notable" Well, yes, I agree that it's not an A7, but it needs to be sourced or deleted. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

John Gallagher (barrister) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, unreferenced wp:blp Work permit (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Yemeni Arabic. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of the article does not appear to exist. The article has been tagged as unsourced since November, and a Google search of "Somali Arabic" likewise turns up no references to the dialect. There are, however, many references to the fact that the most common dialect of Arabic spoken in Somalia is the Yemeni dialect. Middayexpress (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

merge to Yemeni Arabic - can be broken out again if sources are forthcoming. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, non-notable. PROD has been removed, so bringing to AfD. Article itself says it isn't notable (yet). If it ever becomes notable, then it can be included in WP. GedUK  08:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also adding List of characters in the Paratrooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as if the comic isn't nootable, neither will the characters in it be. GedUK  08:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley) Complete repertoire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced listcruft, per WP:NOT. It is a list of wikilinked plays, the wikilinks have nothing to do with this theater company's productions. It is just a list. Sets a bad precedent. Xtzou (Talk) 19:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this debate has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't see any reliable secondary sources when searching. I know it's been mentioned in a couple interviews, but an bringing it here to decide if that is sufficient notability. Pirate 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • (WITHDRAWN!!! ) This is probably going to be a waste of time. Withdraw the nomination and someone else can re-nominate for deletion if they like. One of the steps failed when I did the auto AFD so this might not be listed on one of the other pages it's supposed to be listed on. Pirate 06:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)



STRONG KEEP

  • I agree with those who voted to "Keep" the VHEMT Article in the first AfD discussion (March 15-21, 2007).
  • The current Nominator (User: Pirate) appears to have withdrawn his AfD nomination. Therefore, I simply propose (only a suggestion) that this discussion be closed-----with the final finding of "Result is to keep the article Voluntary Human Extinction Movement."
  • Does the VHEMT Article comply with WP:VERIFY / WP:RELIABLE / WP:NOTE? My findings are that the Article does comply; therefore said Article does not merit deletion. Yet, regarding my findings, I welcome the evaluation of an Administrator.
  • Attention Administrator:
If needed, "Please" consider assigning the VHEMT Article to WP:RESCUE. My thoughts are that it's better to save said Article through editing (Administrator suggestions are most welcomed)-----whereas, deletion is a "last resort option".

Disclosure. I have made significant contributions to this Article and I monitor it daily against vandalism.
Skyeking (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Does seem to be lack of third party reporting. There appear top be just three sources, so I'm not sure its that notable. Im would like to see a bit more notability, and less reliance on thier own material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please do make sure you check the article over the next few days. There's plenty of news coverage between to establish notability (from CBS, Fox, Discovery, the Independent, and MSNBC). Between me adding references and trying to clean up the prose and Orangemike's diligent removal of poorly sourced material, I think it's already much improved, at least in terms of proper sourcing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this organization will never reach any real traction, and rightfully so. However, it still has more sources than a lot of other articles, and it is given in a neutral point of view. The notability of this organization is not great, but not bad, considering the fact that it has had multiple interviews and media attention in the past. I would also like to make it clear that the absence of sources is not an issue here. There are sources here, and even if there are a lot of primary sources, there are plenty of other articles that suffer from far worse PR-style writing. I feel this article should be kept, and I would like to know what the rationale for deletion is -- my belief is it is the cult-like purpose of this organization that has turned wikipedians to disgust --and that is not at all a fair rationale for deletion, mind you.--Screwball23 talk 03:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment The AFD was made in good faith--when I looked at the article a few days ago, almost all of the inline references went to the org's website. As you say, sourcing is not a problem to do, it just wasn't done. I'll be working on this the next couple of days, so I'd request that anyone who's voted already, take another look later this week. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Thanks to Nuujinn's good work, the notability of the topic is immediately evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The general outcome for articles with lots of good sources is to keep them, people known for one event being the only exception. We keep lots of fringe theories and odd stuff here. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable shows have featured the founder of this movement speaking of it, as listed in the article. Clicking the Google news link, you see many major news sources mention the movement there. Dream Focus 06:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Windsor Spitfires 2009-10 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. The subject of the article fails the notability requirements of wp:athlete or the notability requirements of wp:hockey. 2. It is a collection of statistics without an article. (wp:notstats) While other stub articles exist with a potential to be better, this one has no potential to be more relevant. 3. It is an article that fails due to its recentism. The topic of this article may very well be notable in the future. I suggest it be moved to the hockey wikia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑