Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 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, WP:G12 by User:CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kamil Al-Ziyarat (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 book, author doesn't have an article further indicating lack of notability Falcon8765 23:16, 27 August 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 under criterion G3. This alternate table appears to be completely fabricated, i.e., a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1 (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 appears to be a hoax article of a season of Total Drama made up in User:Solinne64's imagination. Also see their user page now and before, . There was a prod tag that was removed without an edit summary that reinstated the elimination table. Aspects (talk) 23:08, 27 August 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. No delete rationale offered, no delete !votes at this time. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea (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)

Seriously. Stamps??? WikiCopterChecklist 22:57, 27 August 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 Snowball keep! Non-admin closure.

Lieutenant Frank Drebin (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 contains mostly trivia and not enough encyclopedic information. Only lead contains valuable information, which could easily be moved to The Naked Gun. Character is not notable enough on its own for its own article, and should deleted or merged to The Naked Gun. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:51, 27 August 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 per WP:SNOW. Mandsford 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Format physics (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. Let us be kind and just call it "original research". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 August 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. No clear consensus has emerged. I am closing it this, with no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Micro Award (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. Non notable award lacking in significant coverage from independent 3rd party sources. --23 Benson (talk) 21:10, 27 August 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. There are strong arguments put forward that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines, and those arguments have clear consensus support. Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Manmadhan Ambu (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)

In May I prodded this article about “a forthcoming film” citing WP:Crystal, but it was de-prodded with the reason “refs say filming began in April 2010. per WP:NFF it is enough to keep the article, as this is a notable film starring notable actors”. It is now the end of August and the film has still not yet been released. It is not notable as an unreleased film. Knowledge is not a crystal ball. Quable (talk) 20:47, 27 August 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. This is a question of "It's below 5.0, so not notable" vs "It's unusually high for the general location". Clear consensus was not found, so I am closing it thus - but without prejudice against a speedy renomination, should that be considered desireable -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 County Clare 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)

Now that the fervor is over I'll relist this debate. No casualties. Rest of article full of trivia. We normally don't even list them on 2010 earthquakes if they are below a 5.0 Marcus Qwertyus 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very weak keep after reading this which states "The tremor was 10 times more powerful than the one which hit Co Donegal earlier this year" which was also unusual. Plus a representative from the School of Cosmic Physics calling it "very important", "there is no record in any historical archive of a tremor or earthquake before", "This event forces us to reevaluate the west of Ireland's geology", etc. due to broken records, never having happened before, etc. The "project notability requirements" link mentioned above took me to a talk page/user page which seems to facilitate "common sense" but even so does state "Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e. countries rather than counties)". And the West of Ireland is not a county - it is many of them. "Large enough" is open to interpretation depending on your position in the world/universe. --candle•wicke 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The weakness of Irish earthquakes is itself notable. Some hi-tech chipmaking by laser plants are here because of the stablility of the soil (if nothing else!). Besides not much ever happens in Clare now that matchmaking is dying out.Red Hurley (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Well below notability guidelines for Earthquakes. It seems that nobody would have known about it but for sophisticated measuring equipment. 0 deaths, no injuries, no damage, a few people woke up when they heard a loud bang then went back to sleep; now that's not notable! Snappy (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Although only 2.7 magnitude, this quake is notable for being the first ever recorded seismic activity of any kind in the area. It caused quite a stir with the locals. Earthquakes like this happen every single day in some parts of the world, but in Ireland they are extremely rare. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is the poster child for the recent proliferation of worthless articles about trivial earthquakes. No way is this worth an article. Such minor quakes happen all the time, all over the world; this one was probably not even felt except by instruments. Question for those who claim that minor earthquakes are notable if they occur someplace that doesn't get many earthquakes: Thunderstorms are unusual here in San Diego where I live. They almost always make the news when they happen, and everybody talks about them for days. In other parts of the country, thunderstorms are an everyday occurrence. Would a San Diego thunderstorm be worthy of a Knowledge article, on account of its rarity and news coverage? That's pretty much the argument that people make when they say "well, yes, it was a minor earthquake, but it was unusual for the area." For that matter, it snowed here once, back in the 1940s - up to an inch in places. That inch of snow would certainly be worth an article, 1948 San Diego snowstorm , under the standards that are being proposed here for earthquakes. How about it, shall I write the article 1948 San Diego snowstorm? --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment And before you all get too excited about "the largest earthquake ever recorded!", "first ever recorded in the area!", etc., please note that records have only been kept since 1978. So the correct description is "largest earthquake in more than 30 years."--MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: A notable event. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Please note WP:ITSNOTABLE. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of relevance here is WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS which require news events of this kind to receive coverage and impact for inclusion. Even if the coverage exists, the impact here certainly doesn't. In fact, the event is known only for it's low impact. It therefore fails the relevant inclusion standards.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the unusual geographical location, which makes it significant. BTW, an article on the San Diego snowstorm of even one inch would be notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with Mkativerata. My search doesn't show any later coverage. In fact, it seems to be more of an earth tremor. A non-notable event, that has received no coverage since it happened. I would point out the Wikiproject's criteria don't seem applicable when they're stuck on the talk page and debated. Bigger digger (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I should point out I try to come to these as a keeper, I don't like deleting editors' hard work, but there just isn't the in-depth coverage in reliable sources I need to find to support that position. The keeps suggest that it was a big deal in parts of Ireland, but then where is the material to support that? At the moment there are just assertions. Bigger digger (talk) 17:18, 3 September 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DNA art (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)

Disputed PROD. Non-notable art form. The references do not establish notability as they all deal with the collection and processing of DNA generally and not with the art form itself. Fails the general notability guideline. Also rather spammy with a helping of WP:NOTHOWTO. ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 27 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira (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 player never played in Brazilian National League Serie B and Serie C (2005, 2007 & 08) season, thus a non-notable player. In 2005 season the first choice is Adriano (all 8 matches) In 2007 the keepers were Raniere (30 out of 32), Aloísio (2 out of 32). In 2008 is Paulo Musse (30 out of 38), Raniere (8 out of 38). I have checked every match reports of these seasons. The North America leagues were not notable. Matthew_hk tc 20:11, 27 August 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 as a direct overlap of TV Parental Guidelines. — GorillaWarfare 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Channel TV Ratings (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)

Not really notable WikiCopterChecklist 19:54, 27 August 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 as G1 NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

తెలుగు డైలాగ్స్ (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)

nonsense Lhmn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdia village (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)

orphan article, only claimed source is dead link, so bad it not help writing proper article Lhmn (talk) 19:07, 27 August 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 Jason Derülo (album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Love (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:NSONG; there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Guoguo12--Talk--  18:15, 27 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Raymond B. Kemp (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 think this academic fails notability. He is not a tenured faculty member at Georgetown (http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/kempr/), but a research fellow (http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/fellows.html). I come up with only 13 Google Scholar hits. This seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The Google News archive hits do not indicate significant coverage to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, though they do confirm he was a District of Columbia school board member for a few years in the 1970s. Absent coverage, though, that doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Novaseminary (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment That's precisely the problem, though. Anything (or anyone) would meet WP:N if there were enough reliable sources discussing it in detail. By saying that this individual fails to meet the various Knowledge notability guidelines, we are not saying he is not worthy of note, or not important, or not valuable. Rather, just that the coverage, etc., does not yet justify an article. Novaseminary (talk) 17:53, 29 August 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. Mandsford 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California) (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 meet notability guideline. Notability for buildings seems to indicate NRHP listing as the criterion for notability; see List of Masonic buildings for more on this. There are issues there, but the basis of that list is NRHP listing. The article here clearly states the building is not on the NRHP because the oweners did not wish it on there. It is not a unique building either in style or period of construction, and simply being "architecturally interesting" is too vague when it fails the major criterion for notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping MSJ would participate in a notability discussion first at the Talk page of the article, rather than bringing this to AFD, but i rather expected it to come here. The AFD nomination is confused. I believe MSJ feels on the one hand that NRHP listing does not convey notability for a building; here he argues lack of NRHP listing status proves non-notability. That is silly; there are many buildings that are not NRHP-listed, including, in the United States, many historically important ones such as the White House, the Supreme Court building, and, well, many others. I believe in AFD nominations there is some requirement or suggested guideline for nominators to look for sources, first. Has that been done?
About the place, I have visited it and took photos a while back, which I'll look for and upload within a few days. I recall that, while it is not huge, it is a monumental kind of building that stands out as unusual in Pasadena, and that its Art Deco / zig-zag moderne styling is notable. --doncram (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep A few moments googling finds this. And i found wp:BEFORE which states requirements for an AFD nominator to follow, not followed. --doncram (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete fails GNG. The source found on google, pasadenascottishrite.org, doesn't demonstrate any coverage independent of the subject. NHRP explicitly declined the application. "Interesting" is a subjective opinion of the author of the wikipedia article. The citing of BEFORE is also misleading. That's not policy, nor a requirement, whether or not the non-policy is "adhered to."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the NRHP accepted the listing and judged the place notable; hence the finding that the place was NRHP-eligible. It's a technical matter that the building's owner, the Scottish Rite of Pasadena, apparently, chose to decline to allow the listing. Pasadena is a city with a very active historic preservation community, and NRHP listing would likely bring the building within local building/historic preservation restrictions, as happens in a number of other jurisdictions, so an owner decision not to allow listing sometimes happens.
Whatever you say about WP:BEFORE, which is displayed on the AFD main page. Call them "guidelines" or "suggested requirements" that the nominator ignored then. I just pointed to the very first hit in googling on "Scottish Rite Pasadena". I expect there are some other google-accessible sources, and many offline sources, regarding this place. I don't see how you can possibly come to a judgment that there is no independent coverage of the place, already.
About more sources, it should be possible to get a copy of an NRHP nomination form for the place, which is generally regarded as a reliable secondary source, even though the NRHP listing did not go through. There is a date and an NRHP reference number available. I'll put in a request for that, but it usually takes a while to receive those from the U.S. National Register in Washington, D.C., when the documents are not available on-line (as for California). Because I am somewhat interested in developing the article. The AFD should be rejected outright, IMHO, but you are obviously free to disagree. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you find reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to allow for the construction of an actual encyclopedia article on a building of established (rather than supposed or imagined or "expected") notability, let us know. This article should have never been created in the absence of appropriate sources. You haven't found any -- and neither has anyone else. If there's some clearly idiotic guideline that says everything on the NRHP is de facto notable, that's a pity -- but it still wouldn't trump the GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Bali ultimate.--Caravan train (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep There are three sources listed on the bottom of the page originally linked that you didn't like. Just because you cannot immediately access them doesn't make them invalid sources. As far as NRHP nominations, have you ever looked at one? They are generally long, well-written documents justifying why and how the place meets federal standards of notability. The documents include historic context, reasons for notability and a detailed bibliography of sources, among other things. It is for these reasons that throughout years of having them judged as sources that places that have passed such scrutiny and are known to have such sources available have come to be accepted as notable. I'm sure you might win a delete on any given one or many, and force there to be no coverage of the subject until someone with enough time or interest requests the document, or until it becomes available online. I am equally sure that when the document was received or available online, the article would be re-added. Given the reliability of the known to be availabile documents, I cannot see what good is done to the encyclopedia to exclude all coverage of those places until such time as someone has the time to request the document for each of the 80,000 places. We have the list itself, which as a source tells us that the federal government has reviewed the information and found the place to be notable. The criteria are available online. The database was, and will be available online. We know that this place would have been listed but for the whim of the owner. So, be arbitrary and delete it if you want to. But don't try to convince me that it's in order to protect the encyclopedia or to keep out coverage of something inappropriate. You may think the reasons for our believing that anything listed on the NRHP is notable are "idiotic", but I think it's idiotic to dismiss them without even asking upon what they were founded. Lvklock (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Per NRHP nomination docs, web sources in the article and Los Angeles Times newspaper coverage, including this series from Feb. 16-18, 1925 when the cathedral was dedicated: CATHEDRAL TO BE DEDICATED: Services Will be Conducted in Pasadena Tomorrow New Scottish Rite Building Beautiful Edifice National Officers Are Here for Ceremonies TO DEDICATE CATHEDRAL: Everything in Readiness for Scottish Rite Ceremony at Pasadena This Evening SCOTTISH RITE HAS DEDICATION: Elaborate Ceremonies Take Place at Cathedral Several Hundred Masons of High Degree Present Further Programs Planned at Crown City Edifice. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Additionally, the Scottish Rite Cathedral has an entry in An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep There seems to be fair number of primary and secondary sources to establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Its inclusion on this list: National Register of Historic Places should be sufficient to establish notability. --Crunch (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I have notified the above editor that his vote rationale is directly contradictory to the basis of the AfD and facts established in the article. NHRP.com is not considered to meet RS. - MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm not intending on voting in this. Given that this building is not listed it doesn't pass the NRHP project notability position, however if one takes a fairly generous position on the meaning of non trivial and independent of the subject then there are likely to be sufficient sources to meet the needs of the General Notability Guideline. Personally I'd say that rather abuses the notion of notability, but the majority of votes do tend to take a fairly lax position around evidence. There are a number of aspects of this article, as with many of the similar stub articles, that would benefit from clarification around meaning and accuracy. The use of the NRHP forms as a source does leave me considering our position on Primary and Secondary sources, the form looks like a primary source to me.
ALR (talk) 09:07, 28 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shibley Rahman (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)

COI article for a non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance and with a single BBC GNEWS (missing from the article) that outlines alleged stalking of an actress . The article reads like a CV and appears to fail notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noted all the comments above, and really I have to say, having carefully read the comments, that If it does not fulfill the criteria for a biography of any sort, I'd be very happy for you to pull it altogether. A clear consensus is emerging that this article is not suitable for Knowledge and I have a genuine sense of guilt for wasting all your valuable time. Please note, however, that I am trying to edit the article, but as you know it's pretty pointless doing it about an article writh you or your work as the subject.
Indeed my closest friends have advised me that impartiality is a critical thing, and that autobiographies are virtually impossible to write. It might therefore be sensible for me to consider how I might contribute to the brilliant Wiki elsewhere? Please note that since the publication of these comments I have referred to a main incident of my life, which does need make my history notable, but the fact that I am well respected in the field of dementia research (and in fact quoted by more than half of the reference list, other laboratories who have discussed my research in their independent papers) so much so that my paper is currently in chapter 24.2.2 of the Oxford Textbook of Medicine (OUP), is a source of pride for me. And I have been awarded membership of the Society of Biology, and Fellowship of the Royal Society for Encouragement in the Arts, Commerce and Entrepreneurship, which is indeed another one of your criteria. I have done for a long time unpaid expert academic work in a medical charity (as shown on my linkedin profile), and I was awarded an academic scholarship at Westminster and Cambridge (the second, whilst not national as such, is the 4th top university in the world currently according to "The Economist".
Having said all that, if my article is patently unsuitable despite the re-writes, I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise, as you know the rules far better than me! So I do apologse for any upset caused; Ihave found writing this, yes effectively, autobiography emotionally demanding for obvious reasons, given that I am disabled and do not apply for any regular jobs. I therefore am very unlikely to meet your notifiability guidelines for decades to come, which greatly saddens me. However, I have rewritten the article many times, and it still reads like an autobiography, I feel. Of course, an easy way around this would be to get people who are experts in frontal dementia or Parkinson's disease to evaluate critically what I've written, as it's arguably fair that the Wiki piece should be subject to genuine peer review, as well as editorial moderation. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just actually tackled one of Kinu's original criticisms of many moons ago. I've got rid of any gratuitous references by myself which are irrelevant to the main article (such as my reviews of frontal lobe function in book chapters), because they did inadvertently look like a CV. I hope that this has improved the quality of the article, even though I know you're going to axe it unless something drastic happens. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individually, this person is not notable enough for a article. His work on scientific topics could perhaps we referenced on the pages relevant to those topics, but a biography page is not the place to discuss such topics. Fellowship of the RSA is totally not notable: that's available for purchase. There are over 80,000 members of the Society of Biology. It's just not of encylopedic interest. --Duncan (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would be happy for it to be axed. I was only doing my best. I would like to put it somewhere in Wiki as the work is interesting. The article on frontotemporal dementia is too brief to put it there without looking out of place. In that case, I feel that I fundamentally agree with Duncan in that the work is fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia such as Wiki. I am very grateful for your comments though, and I hope that the word 'delete' is no reflection of the fact my work is considered crap. Nobody very senior around the world would think that in frontotemporal dementia, not least the people I've quoted, many of which I meet on the professional circuit (it's real academia, not Wiki.)
Right, could you then delete it? I would like to some sort of biolography on AboutUs. Many thanks guys. I actually agree with you. By the way, confirm this is correct?
"You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Knowledge, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Knowledge. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death). ( source of policy quotation )
I assume that if you get rid of it off Wiki then I can publish my work (it is my own work) elsewhere which is after all what we both wish?
PS Your comment that being a FRSA is available for purchase is not on. I believe that your own Wiki page even explains the membership process for election. You have to meet certain criteria. Some officers of Wiki may not meet them indeed however much money they pay (this is not a personal criticism at all, please note). http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/the-fellowship Your description of the RSA is hugely insulting to members of it, I humbly submit. Thanks guys.
Best wishes - nothing personal - just delete it - I will still continue to adore Knowledge. Articleman11 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Have asked for help at BLPN, here.
I just want this to end!!!!!!!!!!!!! Articleman11 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 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. Fails verifiability, notability (under GNG and ATHLETE) j⚛e decker 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Ball (rugby union) (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 article is about a rugby union pl;ayer with no coverage in reliable sources to to establish notability. The article claims that he plays for Newport RFC and the Newport Gwent Dragons. However, he is not listed on the current squads: , . Checking with WikiProject Rugby union, User:FruitMonkey offered the opinion that "With no first class games under his belt and no international caps, we must state at this time Chris Ball is not notable and should be deleted." Whpq (talk) 16:49, 27 August 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) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gfxartist (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)

Appears to fail the notability criteria due to a lack of significant impact than can be demonstrated in independent sources. Searching Google News reveals no articles, general searching shows mentions on internet guides (web and book based) but nothing to firmly demonstrate notability worthy of creating an encyclopaedic article and current references included are all back to the website. The article has had a six year grace period for reliable sources to be found and added. Fæ (talk) 13:01, 13 August 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, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  16:42, 27 August 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) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate NRG (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)

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable compilation albums. These albums are not original music by an artist, they are simply a collection of songs on one CD; a glorified mixtape. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. SnottyWong 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see how that's relevant here, noting something is a "top selling dance genre compilation" isn't case of 'liking it' at all. Yes, it could be with a reference to that effect, but that's not a relevant policy to show in this case - He didn't say they're "good". I grew out of this type of dance music years ago, but I'd still say that they just meet the notability threshold. Esteffect (talk) 20:12, 14 August 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, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  16:42, 27 August 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) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA, YOU SET OF TOTAL DOUCHE BAGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.118.43 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Basick Records (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, non-notable record label. Significant number of references at first glance, but closer inspection shows that they're all either reprints of press releases, or are non-third party sources. Several of the references she added were automatically flagged as spam and removed by a bot. The majority of the bands they represent are red-linked, the few that do have articles appear to have very questionable notability. Fails the alternative criteria in WP:MUSIC, fails the general notability guideline. Author seems to have no edits outside Basick records and the bands they represent. 2 says you, says two 21:37, 13 August 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, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  16:41, 27 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TechCentric (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)

Self made page about a video podcasting service, which talks about computer & internet related topics. I haven't found any reliable sources to indicate notability. Mattg82 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 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) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative optimization (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 have reviewed Huang: Cooperative Optimization for Energy Minimization: A Case Study of Stereo Matching and it basically looks equivalent or very similar to the well-known technique of dual decomposition. I am certainly not convinced that this topic should have its own Knowledge article, as this terminology is not established in the field of optimization. Petter (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Looking at Google Scholar results there are only 18 citations to Huang's main paper and they all seem to be by Huang himself. Some other titles do mention "Cooperative optimization" but I'm not sure these refer to the same concept as Huang.--Salix (talk): 07:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article has several issues, the most serious is that it relies heavily on a single author for its sources. This is a relatively new subject so there don't seem to be any textbook references, though I did find several references in conference proceedings etc. This isn't enough to satisfy the GNG but articles have survived AfD's with less.--RDBury (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ray 16:47, 2 September 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Base under siege (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 article was already speedily deleted, apparently for lacking notability. The editor who created it originally reproduced the article, with no cites to support its notability. A Google search found nothing save a mention on the TV Tropes page hereWikiuserNI (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Stub article with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Might be worth including in an article describing stock plot devices. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle Dick; also, has no inward links from article space. Talk page says "It's not a hoax. People talk about 'base under siege' all the time." - but it's not a term I've heard of, so I, for one, don't talk about it "all the time". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As I stated on the talk page of the article - while Bottle show is a term that has reached common usage this term has not. The TV tropes link provided by WikiuserNI only uses the more general term "Siege". It does not include "base under" anywhere that I could find. Thanks for doing the leg work on getting this going. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 27 August 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown, Leeds (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)

There is no Chinatown in Leeds, yet we have an article here on Chinatown, Leeds. There are no sources, and this reads like pure WP:OR. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 27 August 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rati Ram Sharma (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)

Apparent autobiography containing some remarkable claims of groundbreaking physics discoveries made through, err, yoga and meditation. The subject similarly claims to have overturned core principles of chemistry and biology. Claims for homeopathy are demonstrably false. Subject has awarded himself things like the Albert Schweitzer prize. The sole source is a self-authored website with much of the same self-aggrandising fiction.

There's no evidence of notability other than these extraordinary and unfounded claims. It's difficult to believe a word of the article, and I cannot find a reliable source on the subject, so I think deletion is the best way forward. bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 27 August 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. Favonian (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Douglas W. Clayton (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 individual. Article contains only brief third party mentions (typically quotes), primarily related to his firm, Leopard Capital and is highly promotional in content. The creator of the article was also involved in the creation of a series of articles related to this firm including Kingdom Breweries (afd-deleted), Nautisco Seafood (afd-deleted), CamGSM (afd-no consensus). (See also Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Reluctant keep First, I hate these self-serving promo type biographies. But, the sources cited make me lean towards a keep (especially the NYT cite). He may not be the biggest and highest paid in his field (criminal investor class) but he appears to at least be on the stage. If this were deleted I don't think it would be missed. However, if it turns out that the original editor is involved in some commercial chicanery, I wouldn't hesitate to gut everything done under that aegis. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The NYT interview is not about Clayton, his life and career. It is about investments in Cambodia and secondarly his firm. I think his firm is a clear keep but not every founder of a notable firm is notable himself. This is borrowed notability at best. I have not found a single profile of Clayton, news about his career or life. So what makes him notable? On top of that, the content of the article is clearly a big problem and this is just another link in an attempt to promote the firm. Why is that something we would want to permit? By the way - he runs a firm with 15 employees - while the firm is doing notable work, I struggle to understand the reluctance to delete |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I echo Quartermaster above. I hate the page but the subject seems to be a big enough fish in the financial world to merit inclusion. Link in fn 4 is dead, by the way. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you are basing your "big fish" assessment on. I am not sure when getting quoted is sufficient for notability. What makes him notable? All he did was start a firm three years ago - and before that worked at a bunch of other firms that are not notable. This is exactly who the notability standard is supposed to keep out. Really bizarre. Half of the references if you look are on the company website and are promotional puff pieces that reference Clayton only insofar as they are talking about the firm. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Listen, go ahead and nuke the article if you want to. I won't go running to anyone about how some great injustice took place. AfD's are not cut and dried (otherwise why ask for comments?) and these aren't votes. Y'all get my considered opinion offered up (lightly in this case) and can do with it what you will. I appreciate your passion in this, but I don't think this is a big enough deal to waste a lot of my time justifying the notability of this guy. My opinion, based on reading the article, based on a loose weighing of cited sources (weak sources? yes. But we've all seen MUCH weaker survive to this day), makes me lean towards a keep in this case. I think if I based my opinion/advice on what I personally liked or disliked (and I dislike this article) I would be giving my honest contributions to wikipedia short shrift. Carry on. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Quartermaster is my twin brother, separated at birth. Well put. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll strike the keep, I'm not married to this staying. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 2 September 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeannine Burk (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 article is about a survivor of the holocaust. She gets mentioned and her story gets told but is she notable? Whpq (talk) 14:55, 27 August 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Brady (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 article is about a musician that does not establish notability. What I did find about him established him as ex-boyfriend of Ashlee Simpson, and playing guitar for her. Whpq (talk) 14:51, 27 August 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 the whole shebang. Despite a few !votes from SPAs there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. No prejudice against renominating any of these articles individually. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One Land, Five Nations (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:NOTFILM, and no page on IMDB and during a Google search no reliable source to demonstrate that the film is notable. The article is unsourced. Farhikht (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason as stated above:

End (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Bitter Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Noon of the 10th Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A City Surrounded by Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Textbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Studying in the Modern World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homeless (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Culture and Scientific treasuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nations Cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Religious Toolmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The World Intellectuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Faces, Burnt Bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Man Called Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Falcon's Blood Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. Some of these articles were previously put up for deletion and it was decided to keep them. It is hard to find references online because the Iranian government places a strong censorship on information about Iranian films and their content. Therefore Iranian film makers have a hard time exporting their films to the western world. As Pouya sh says, there are many references to this film in Iranian magazines. To delete this article would show inconsistency, and would help the Iranian government with their censorship, which would totally defeat the point of having a "free" encyclopedia. SuperCrab (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two reasons: 1. Some of these films such as A Man Called Brian clearly have references and have participated in international film festivals, but they have been listed with the unsourced films in one group. 2. These are mostly Iranian films, and in Iran the internet is not as widespread (certinly not back in 80s and 90s), so the many magazines and critics that have published articles on these films in Iran back in the 80s and 90s are not (yet) available on the internet to be given as sources. Knowledge is also a source of information about notable topics that are in countries with little or slow internet access! Pouya sh (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Pouya sh on this. You have to be careful about removing a complete man's work from WP. Also, the fact that One Land, Five Nations isn't in IMDB isn't a concern. The reality is that the majority of the films made in the world aren't in IMDB. Its a very western centric database, that isn't updatated that quickly as regards foreign films. Only the most popular films make, not the most notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason of AfD is that there is no source for the article and it fails WP:NOTFILM, and by talking about IMDB I just wanted to say that even in this database you can't find the name of these films. You can't vote without applying on policies and guidelines, we are here to reach a consensus. Pouya sh clearly says that there is no English source for the articles on the net (even for Homeless (2006) which is in English?), ok, but is there any Persian source? or at least is there any reviews in a magazine like Iranian Film magazine? Or you mean that we have to keep the article without reason?Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Iranian Film magazine is the most popular film magazine in Iran, yet its own article on wikipedia is only one line in length! You see the problem? Iran is not as connected to the internet as we all wished. If the magazine is hardly online, it does not includes a database for all notable Iranian films! Pouya sh (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I tagged it.Farhikht (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Its often extremely hard to find online sources on Iranian films due to the cencorship laws in Iran. The Iranian government controls what gets published online regarding domestic films produced. Clarket89 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of these films have been produced by IRIB, you mean the government censured its own products?!Farhikht (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarket89 is right, all films and artists in Iran HAVE to get permission from the government prior to starting work. Yet the government places restrictions on the films (regardless of who the producer is, whether IRIB or other) after their production to prevent their "export". Thats a well known fact.Pouya sh (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify, according to the Iranian constitution, all television and radio programs and channels are approved by IRIB. It has full censorship powers. That includes all singers, songwriters, film makers, producers, everyone! Therefore if the producer of some of these films is written as IRIB, that only means that the film is made by an Iranian in Iran, not that it is in anyway connected to the government nor that its political. So its not "the government's own products" as Farhikht says. A perfect example is The Circle (2000 film), a film approved by the Iranian government before production, but banned in Iran after production! The only reason why that film has online references is because it won the Golden Lion award in Italy. Pouya sh (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the comments above, also, I see that one of the articles had previously been tagged for deletion, and the result of that was a "Keep". UKAndyM (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all as notable to Iran is easily notable enough for en.Knowledge. Lack of readily available online sources... specially for films from a country without a strong internet infrastructure, does not mean that hardcopy sources do not exist. With even the little offered here by other editors, I have a reasonable presumption of notability. Guideline does not demand that all such sources be brought to the fore within the next few days... only that we editors have a reasonable presumption that they exist. Schmidt, 01:58, 30 August 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Krishna Misra Bhattacharjee (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 article is about an author, poet, literary critic that does not establish notability. The article provides no sourcing. As the subject works in Bengali, there is a concern of WP:BIAS. However, the only sourcing I can dig up is the subject's web site. Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 August 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) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanidhya Bali (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 article is about a youth politician that does not meet notability. The article describes various roles he has held in the youth wing of political organisations but having not held any political office, he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article also describes his relatives' accomplishments, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Coverage about him is minor. The most substantial item I could find was this. Whpq (talk) 14:31, 27 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Privately held companies of Cambodia (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 article assembles a collection of non-notable and semi notable companies all owned by a single private equity firm Leopard Capital. Two of the companies in this article have already been deleted in separate AfDs. The user responsible for the article has already been cited for issues with WP:ADVERT, WP:COI and WP:SOCK (See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:29, 27 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Kahn (film industry) (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:N Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 14:08, 27 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Ferren (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. Child actor, played a minor role in Blades of Glory. The article goes on stating all the prizes won by the movie, but Ferren was personally awarded none of these prizes. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 14:05, 27 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Daxko (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 article appears to fail WP:ORG guidance. There are no results in GNews and matches in GBooks appear to be tangential or as part of lists/directories of companies. Apart from possibly being a "worthy" organization, there is nothing in the current article to expect the company has made impact on the historical record or other significance in order to expect suitable sources to be found to demonstrate notability in the near future. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 27 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

John Roberts (entrepreneur) (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 disputed. No indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. PKT(alk) 13:36, 27 August 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, though if I had my druthers I'd have first sent this to WP:PNT. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Xilinx ISE (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. Software with no assertion of notability. Google News only returns press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong keep because the software is a vital component to develop with FPGA on Linux. Other alternatives are simple very encumbered in comparision or simple don't have any free of use Linux offerings. Besides Xilinx was first with this kind of offer. And there is at least two Altera articles on the same software type that has been around for a very long time without challenges. "Xilinx ISE" gives 280 000 hits on Google, but Google is not the final answer to knowledge. Electron9 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • About Altera: any comment on those will not be taken into account. As I've already pointed out, just because there are cracks in the system is no reason to widen the cracks. We'll deal with Altera separately. -- Blanchardb -- timed 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete it just like Blanchardb says. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Interesting software, well suitable for WP. WP's validity as an encyclopedia would be less without articles like this. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Interesting, perhaps. Suitable for WP, no, at least not until some notability is established. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very popular software, essential for developing with the most popular line of FPGAs. I used it in university. No, the page wasn't on my watchlist. It's hard to find a worthwhile reference in Google because the results are swamped with how-tos, academic course pages, vendors selling it, discussion threads about technical issues, etc. But there are a lot of hits, because a **lot** of people use it. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of great references found using GScholar and GBooks. Please stop using GNews to base your baseless assertions on. When looking for software (and not advertising) GScholar and GBooks are much better tools. (This also goes for Altera, BTW.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Lol, I didn't notice that before. What does Blanchard expect Google News to return? Potatoswatter (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You'd be surprised ;-) Wired, for instance, is listed there. -- Blanchardb -- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If you are implying that your methodology is not flawed on the basis that Google News indexes Wired, and Wired is a "technology" magazine, therefore Xilinx ISE, which is software, and thus technology, must also be covered, then your methodology is indeed flawed. Wired is Humanities meets technology—its scope is technology in culture and society. Xilinx ISE is electronic design automation software, it belongs in electronics engineering. Wired is also a general-audience publication. Xilinx ISE is software for professionals, and by that I don't mean that it us like Photoshop. I doubt that a one could do the simplest of things in Xilinx ISE without some background or experience in the relevant fields. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Even just using Google as the final answer is quite limiting. There's Yahoo, Excite, and others. Other type of files like source codes etc. Then we have public libraries, research papers published before electronic publishing. News is also something that is new. Software that has been around for long isn't new, and thus is less likely to show up. The research method for this nomination seems flawed. Electron9 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I never noticed he used gnews either. That's a terrible way to look for reliable sources, particularly for software companies and their product, and more so for open source companies that often don't make the news. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The primary software used for developing designs for the most popular FPGAs on the market, and therefore one of the most important pieces of EDA software on the market. JulesH (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nominations like this one are disappointing. The nominator's argument that Xilinx ISE is not notable because there are no Google News results other than press releases suggests two things: feigned ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is or genuine ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is. Both are not desirable in a deletion debate. Understanding what one is nominating for deletion prevents poor-quality articles about notable topics from being deleted and it saves everyone a lot of time, both of which are beneficial for Knowledge. I find the reliance on Google News to determine notability suspicious because it seems that the nominator is deliberately limiting the search to publications that are least likely to have coverage of this software. Is this a dodgy deletionist strategy or something more innocent? I would really like an explanation. By the way, I tried Google Books with "Xilinx ISE" as the search phrase and the first result I got was: Denton J. Dailey (2004), Programming Logic Fundamentals Using Xilinx ISE and CPLDs, Pretince Hall, 203 pages. I have not seen the book, but I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the book is an introduction to PLDs and using Xilinx ISE to design for them. I will look for more sources when I have the time. Rilak (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep - Having not enough time to present multiple references when I was typing the above comment, I declined to state my position on the matter. I believe that the following references is sufficient to prove notability as it demonstrates independent third-party coverage published in reliable sources:
  • Volnei A. Pedroni (2004), Circuit Design with VHDL, MIT Press. — Appendix B is instruction on the use of VHDL in Xilinx ISE.
  • Pong P. Chu, (2008), FPGA Prototyping by Verilog Examples: Xilinx Spartan-3 Version, Wiley-Interscience. — As the title suggests, this book is instruction on FPGA design using a Spartan-3 as an example. Xilinx ISE is the design software used, and as such, contains significant coverage of the software throughout the book. I am looking at Section 2.5 (p. 21), which is an overview of the ISE Project Navigator, although there is coverage elsewhere.
  • Gina R. Smith, (2010), FPGAs 101: Everything You Need To Know To Get Started, Newnes. — The book is non-trivial instruction on FPGAs, which includes the Xilinx ISE software. Note: I believe Newnes is an Elsevier imprint. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: In light of the references found by HowardBGolden, I am tempted to withdraw this nomination. However, with two outstanding Delete !votes, I can't do that just yet. -- Blanchardb -- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The two outstanding delete votes are basically agreement with your position. They don't add any independent analysis. Therefore, I don't believe you need to consider them in your decision to withdraw. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • One of them, yes. The other I don't think so. -- Blanchardb -- timed 04:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The other vote provides no indication that its position was reached by looking at what realiable sources say. It appears that its position was reached by responding to a previous vote. Basically, it says, "Well, if someone says that the article should be kept because the article's topic is interesting, then the article should be deleted." Is this not flawed? Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's simply not what I see in the argument in question, he was referring to the lack of a stronger argument to sway him to the keep side. I want this editor to decide whether his concern was addressed, and I can't make the decision for him. I've notified this editor, and I'm actually surprised he hasn't responded yet. -- Blanchardb -- timed 03:50, 31 August 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) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Katekavia Flight 9357 (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:NOT#NEWS. An article about an aircrash which, upon investigation, seems to only be sourcable to just to the brief burst of news on the day. There seems to be no evidence that it will become a historically notable crash or significant event, and nothing that is currently known about it supports such a conclusion. As ever, I've no objection to recreation if notability can be proved with some later events. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Article meets WP:GNG (significant coverage, independent of the subject, etc) with the sources provided. Knowledge:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary invalidates your arguement about it becoming historically notable. Maybe you should try to start a centralised discussion about the WP notability guidelines? Lugnuts (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    The GNG is a presumption. It does not over-ride NOT#NEWS, and neither does NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG/WP:N with sources, guaranteed additional coverage in the future because investigation has begun, the crash also led to an investigation of the airline itself, meaning it passes the "...precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." clause of WP:EVENT, not to mention the "significant national or international coverage" of the crash. C628 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    The GNG is a presumption, and so is EVENT. They do not over-ride NOT#NEWS, nor are they automatic passes if content does not warrant separate articles. And what the source actually says about the investigation of the airline is, "a special commission had been set up to investigate how Katekavia was organizing its flights". That sounds like a matter for the airline article, rather than a justification for keeping a separate crash article. Not to mention that without a conclusion, there is no evidence that this will be of lasting significance to the airline. Even the Aviation project's own aircrash notability essay is clear - do not create crash articles where the only significant consequential impact is on a single airline/airport. As for the crash investigation, such investigations are routine - the 'guaranteed coverage' is, for the purposes of N, completely irrelevant, seeing as we do not write articles on every crash that is ever investigated. The "significant national or international coverage" is infact not significant in the way NOT#NEWS, GNG or even EVENT defines it. It is just what you would routinely expect for a crash of this size, just the standard news wire repetition of local officials statements, so unless you are advocating some kind of automatic inclusion criteria on that basis, I don't see how this assertion supports anything, rather it reinforces the idea this is a NOT#NEWS case. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And my point is that this is not a NOTNEWS case, as there have been repercussions because of the crash, which leads to enduring notability. C628 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes....and I thought I had already explained how this point doesn't take account of current practice, common sense, or the actual detailed wording in all the policies, guidelines and essays, which go into great detail about these things. You need to refine it, not simply restate it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per C628--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's recent news now but it's just the sort of news with notability that outlasts the news cycle, and should grow considerably as details emerge and investigations are done.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    This rationale doesn't make sense to me. We do not keep articles on predictions of future news coverage, which appeared to die out nearly a month ago, and an investigation, impending or otherwise, does not confer automatic notability on Wikipeda, as explained at length in reply to C628. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    No, WP is not a crystal ball. But this is already longer and better sourced, from reliable sources, than many articles that appear on the front page as a "did you know...?". My observation was that it may seem a little short on the detail for such a significant accident but that's not unusual, and will improve as investigations are done. And with significant coverage not just from Russia media or air industry sources but from the likes of CNN and Xinhua it already easily meets general notability guidelines.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    No, coverage from CNN or Xinhua does not give automatic notability - these are routine, and pretty brief, international wire reprints, and in depth coverage from Russia also does not defeat NOT#NEWS. The air industry sources are irrelevent - they cover anything and everything, well outside Knowledge's scope or sense of historical significance. Coverage from a future report also doesn't count in terms of defeating NOT#NEWS - we simply do not have an article on all the crashes that get reported on - which is a huge number. I would be happy for the Aviation project to try and propose this, but right now, it is nowhere near to being a match with current practice. And simple article length and quality of sourcing is irrelevent - the nomination is about NOT#NEWS, not style, or the GNG in the sources sense (as opposed to the EVENT sense). MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 28 August 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. WP:HAMMER is NOT a valid reason to delete, article is well sourced (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

50 Cent's fifth studio album (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 title, no track listing, not even sure which record label. WP:HAMMER applies. NtheP (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep: it is well sourced, and thus does provide verifiable and relevant information. WP:HAMMER refers to those cases where the majority of the article is speculation, which is not the case here.173.8.11.157 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not delete it. It is well sourced, has numerous producers listed on it, and 50 is beginning to generate hype for the album. We're going to have to re-create it if we delete it in about a month again anyway, so why not leave it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: I agree with Broomtherapper. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yes this article should be kept. As creator of this article, I ensured that there was plenty of relevant information in the first place sourced on numerous websites - and more verified information in relation to this article arrives frequently. Of course, the album is no longer known as "Black Magic" - though there is a new 50 Cent album in the works. Iconmike2007 (talk)iconmike2007 11:46, 02 September 2010
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

19-Nordehydroepiandrosterone (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)

As far as I can tell, the named chemical compound is not mentioned at all in any of the references listed. The entirety of the text of this article, written primarily by one editor, is original research unsupported by the references. It constitutes synthesis which is against policy. A search of the scientific literature turns up only two articles that mention this chemical compound. Neither article supports either the notability of the compound or the veracity of the article's content. (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#19NorDehydroepiandrosterone for details). In all, except for the data in the infobox, the article fails to meet Knowledge's standards for verifiability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - I couldn't find any WP:RS to establish WP:N. Derild4921☼ 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can see that this one's going to be tough, and require research by multiple editors. My contribution to the double-checking, eliminating one: This isn't in FiehnLab's metabolite list as far as I can see. Uncle G (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but improve referencing. It is discussed on several sites as an anabolic steroid, suggested as a dietary component, and is discussed by the FDA, thus notability is clearly provided. However, maybe it is better to discuss NorDHEAs all together in this article? Nageh (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Delete. I see what the problem is. It indeed seems not discussed at all in any of the references. The only reliable references to be found are that of the FDA, which does not really add much to this article anyway. It is interesting to see there is a promotional site which, despite different text, cites more or less the same references as this wikipedia article. While it may indeed be in use as an anabolic steroid, without better references I change my vote to 'delete'. Nageh (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Frankly, I am not an expert in the area of this specific compound, but I've done my checks yesterday, when this was posted at WP:CHEM, and could not find (i) evidence for this compound in the cited refs, (ii) evidence for this compound in journal articles (WoS, some chemical locators). I guess the structure formula was drawn mechanically, from the formal name. No matter how good such an article looks, it has to be deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject of the article doesn't appear in the citations, and I find exactly one casual mention on searching ("specific abundant metabolites of 19-nor-5-androsten-3,17-dione are 19-nordehydroandrosterone and 19-nordehydroepiandrosterone."). Not enough for WP:N. The bulk of the article is unsourced WP:OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 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) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Omid Habibinia (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:AUTHOR, most of the Ghits are articles by the subject, and others are wikimirrors or social networks. Farhikht (talk) 11:57, 27 August 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Garshakurthy (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)

After a good-faith search, I could find no sources to verify the village's notability. me_and (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Found it via Google Earth. Quite a large village, as is most villages in India. Its a geographical location with a village at that location. It is clearly notable, the same as 1000's of other village and town articles in WP. It needs geographical sources that's all. scope_creep (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see what is "clear" about the village's notability; if it were clear, I wouldn't have nominated it. Further, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not an indicator for this article to be deleted. Per nom, if the village were notable, I would expect to have been able to find sources discussing it; the fact that WP:ITEXISTS is not relevant to WP:N. me_and (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is probably the largest town/village/population center I've seen thrown up for AfD. Looks like a village to me. Even if it was 1/8th of the size, I'd still vote "keep". Population centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep As a real village it is inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep real cities/towns/villages are inherently notable; nominating them is divisive and accomplishes nothing but anger and angst. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 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) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Kileak (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 about a DJ that simply appears not to be notable. This was prodded shortly after it was created (almost 3 years ago) and I deprodded it at the time, but it hasn't been improved since and I could find no sources with which to improve it. Michig (talk) 11:19, 27 August 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. The lack of sourcing that established the subject as a notable topic (or even allowed for a clear definition) was pronounced, and well-developed by those favoring deletion. The great bulk of the support for keeping the article relied on bald assertions of notability, but had difficulty in producing soucing that directly addressed the topic. Most sources offering in the AfD discussion (as opposed to those within the article), were revealed to be based on Knowledge mirrors. Accordingly, I've deleted the article. I will userify it here for further improvement if desired. Finally, with respect to the category, while I agree in principle with the desire to avoid needless bureaucracy, it wasn't listed at WP:CfD or tagged for deletion, or widely discussed here, so I have declined to take action on it. Xymmax So let it be done 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Krishnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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)
(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)

Was considered for deletion in 2005(!), when the result was "no consensus". In the intervening five years, nothing has been done to establish this as a valid topic.

It turns out that the term "Krishnology" has two separate applications, both of them extremely rare:

  • it sees occasional nonce-usage (the earliest instance we found dates to 1929), in comparisons of the theology of Krishnaism to Christology.
  • since 2005 or so (vide the creation of our article in August 2005), adherents of ISKCON push the term in the sense of "academic study of Krishnaism" (misattributing that use to Guy Beck, whose 2005 use of the term clearly is that of "parallel to Christology", see p. 75).

On google books, I get 18 hits for the term. According to my count there are 4 (four) hits for the ISKCON usage of the term, all of them dating to 2008 or later. One of these, from 2009, explicitly mentions the "recent" introduction of the term by ISKCON

This is obviously a case of Knowledge being abused in order to help coining a new term.

I am not opposed to mentioning the term at Krishnaism, and there should be a Wiktionary entry wikt:Krishnology (which I have created myself), but the Krishnology article, as well as the Category:Krishnology, is unsalvageable as a neologism pushed by a religious organization presented as if it was an accepted term in scholarly literature when it has seen all of four mentions over its five-year lifetime.

--dab (𒁳) 10:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Since Iskcon has begun to use the term, a mention of the term might be added to that article. The term lacks sufficient notability to have an article at this time. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Note It is incorrect. ISKCON did not began to use the term (some former ISKCON members in academia began), but it is not about a term -- it is about the topic which inlcudes but not limited to the usage of the term. Where did you see that ISKCON is the body that began to use the term?
In the first paragraph it says, "...as well as a term advanced by ISKCON used in the sense of 'Krishnaist Theology'. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikid 07:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I went looking for sources before reading the article. When I couldn't find anything defining a coherent concept, I went back to read the article to see what else I could search for. To my surprise, all that the article is is a grab-bag of pointers to the various nonce usages of a word and explanations that there isn't such a concept, that I'd already found. The sources cited are the very ones that I'd found explaining that there wasn't any such thing, and using a nonce word in quotation marks. I don't buy the "not improved in five years" argument. I've seen articles that it has taken nine years for the volunteer community to get around to writing. But I do buy the I-cannot-find-any-sources-from-which-even-a-coherent-definition-of-the-field-can-be-obtained argument. There's a different between unwritten because of lack of volunteers and unwritten because it's simply not possible to write. And as far as I've been able to discover, that latter is the case here. There's no concept, and hence there are no sources coherently defining that concept. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I was going to vote dlelete but found a few sources. ] ] ] ] None of these are substantial but it does indicate that there may in fact be something behind this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's one Knowledge mirror in book form, Beck as mentioned in the nomination, and two non-definitions, note. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • please. Of course there is "something behind this". You can read all about it at Krishnaism. The point is that "Krishnology" isn't a term with any currency, and ISKCON adherents are trying to give the term a false appearance of acceptance by keeping a Knowledge article about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Note There are a number of other uses of various speliings (regardless of the source no 4 in the Slatersteven). I have added a few alternative spellings that give you an idea of the alternative usage of the term, but it is not about the term. If it was about a term, it should have been an article on Wikidictionary (which was created by nominator already), this is a Knowledge article, and it is about a subject or a topic which is broader than the term itself. This article is in the middle of expansion, and to suggest that there is no concept of Krishology or Krishna theology is rather preposterous. The material was already merged by the nominator into other article on WP, so the material is valid and sources are reliable. The fact that the article should have been expanded in the last 6 years and was not is rather unfortunate, but it is marked for expansion. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLWikid 07:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
        • in other words, since you say it "isn't about the term", you are proposing a move. I would also welcome a move, to Krishnaism. O wait, that article already exists. Perhaps just a redirect then. Please make an effort to understand WP:COMMONNAME. "Krishnology" clearly isn't the common name for whatever it is you think it should mean. Perhaps "Krishna theology" is, but I doubt it, seeing the measly 70 hits on google books. WHat you want to do is: (1) introduce a "Theology" section at Krishnaism, and (2) after you have collected enough material to warrant a sub-article, create "Krishna theology" under WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
          • No, expansion of the article (the tags that you just removed) requires looking at it not as a dictionary definition, but as a theology of Krishna, not necessarily Krishnaism (worship of Krishna). Krishna's theology and theology about Krishna and comparison of Krishna to Christ etc exists outside of Krishnaism, which is about history and details of worship of Krishna. Even if it was the same (which it is not) you can look at precedent Ayyavazhi theology, Ayyavazhi ethics. Article is being expanded, it is true that krishnology is not necessarily a common "term" but the article is an established one. I would welcome comments from other editors who worked on this article, before I vote on 'move' or 'keep'. Wikid 08:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
            • An article on Krisha theology was suggested in earlier discussion. This is not a name for it, writing about Krisha theology here is mis-placed, and supporting writing about Krisha theology with original research interpretations of nonce coinages isn't particularly good writing. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Krishnaism: (edit conflict) This may be a case of Knowledge:Neologism as stated. here Academicals: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases calls it an academic neologism. References (the online ones) used in the article have a trivial mention of the term. I could not books or articles about the term, as Knowledge:Neologism prescribes. It seems that a section in Krishnaism and wiki-dictionary seems enough for now. I am open to change in my opinion, if books and papers focussing only on Krishnology are found. --Redtigerxyz 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Remove mirror. Still I could not find references that prove it is not a case of Knowledge:Neologism. --Redtigerxyz 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Article is clearly notable. Also, the arguments above can be misleading. ISKCON was created AFTER this term was, 1966. It has been used in India at least since the 1800's. Maybe some more work should be done on the article, but it is a clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I think User:Dbachmann and User:Uncle G have summed up the case for deletion. The refs don't really attest to this term either and are a misleading use within the article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just for completeness, I add that the "alternative spellings" argument above is bogus, too. Krishnaology (AfD discussion) was deleted in 2005 for, basically, complete nonexistence even as a nonce coinage. I actually checked that one when I did my research mentioned above, before the additional names were even added to this discussion. What was true back then appears to be still true today. Its only existence at all is in Knowledge and mirrors. The same is true for all of the others bar one. That one, "krishnalogy", has a single nonce coinage use in quotation marks, and no actual definition of a concept. Uncle G (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a notable topic and satisfies the general notability guidelines. Nominator is not denying that topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. Sources are cited and there is not a single unsourced statement in this article, all sources are good. I do not agree with the arguments that it is a definition. It is actually a theological article with a number of avenues of expansion. Renaming if necessary can be discussed on the talk page. Merging is not an option as it is about two different things. The discussion if it is a neologism or not may be relevant, but since the article is not limited to its titles and there are so many spellings of it even if it was about this specific title, it should be retained. So overall, the deletion appears to be biased. I have not worked much on the article prior to this deletion, but I can see that the topic is expandable, and even if it remains a stub, it will serve the purposes of WP. Also the process of nomination of the CfD, was not followed. Category is not tagged so it is obvious technical keep as well. Wikid 07:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • comment note the "party-line" keep votes above from ISKCON editors who are in fact the party pushing this neologism on Knowledge. Imho such votes should be discounted. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - The term is not notable on its own. Does not qualify for a separate article--Sodabottle (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete both - Pretty clearly a non-notable neologism with little or no use outside of WP. Good nomination. SnottyWong 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep stub for article, but delete the category. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - as an alternative to deletion closing admin should consider to Userfy article, since it was clearly marked for expansion by user Ism, it can be moved to his userspace. Wikid 05:25, 2 September 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) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DeepStream Technologies (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. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:10, 27 August 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. j⚛e decker 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyarika (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 - Knowledge is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 27 August 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 per WP:SK#1. Nominator not advocating deletion and the only delete !vote has been struck (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Salamat Sadykova (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 do not believe this article should be deleted, there is abundant notability claimed so satisfies WP:N, it just needs a lot of work. This article keeps being retaliatorily PRODded by 69.181.249.92, this is to force it through the proper channels. Further, the author is not a native English speaker and may not be aware of copyright laws which are much different in Kyrgyzstan, and to avoid WP:systemic bias, this needs more help than a fly-by-night PROD tag. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the improvement of this article by ARS members is self-evident, so no explanation is really necessary at this point. Silverseren 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedy close - This is nonsense. The nominator keeps removing a BLPPROD tag even though the article has no references, in clear defiance of Knowledge:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. A WP:POINT nomination, done in retaliation for my edits at Belinda (Rice novel) (another unreferenced article). The PROD tag needs to be restored and allowed to run it's course. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of the facts, because of a difference we had at Belinda (Rice novel), 69.181.249.92 PRODded Salamat Sadykova, an article he had never edited before, the very next edit after mine, isn't that a coincidence! I am within policy to see that this article gets a fair shake, bringing it in front of the whole community. This AfD is what needs to be allowed to run its course.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete No evidacne of notability. Perhaps you could provide some cvoerage to disprove this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

References added, please take another look at the article. Silverseren 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - Clearly a WP:POINTy nomination. I don't believe the nominator understands the difference between PROD and BLPPROD. I have tried to explain this on their user talk page, but my warning was quickly reverted. The first sentence of this nomination is more than enough evidence that this AfD was created in bad faith and should be speedily closed. Even if this AfD goes on and gets 400 keep votes, it's not going to prevent anyone from BLPPRODing it right after the AfD is over. As long as there are no references in a biographical article, it can be BLPPRODed. I'm going to ask someone on WP:ANI to take a look at this AfD and consider whether speedy closing and reinstating the BLPPROD tag is appropriate. SnottyWong 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment ineligible for speedy keep per Slatersteven's delete vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep References have now been added to the article and it is quite clear that the subject is quite notable, as she appears to be one of the top singers to come out of Kyrgyzstan. I'm not sure how many major singers come out of said country, but I wouldn't think it to be an expansive amount. Silverseren 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient references have been added to show passing WP:GNG. Moreover, the article says that she has the title of People's Artist of Kyrgyzstan, and this fact does check out according to this Russian newsref. The People's Artist title, instituted back in the Soviet times, signifies a very high degree of artistic recognition, for any of the former Soviet republics. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that ref, I went ahead and added it in. Silverseren 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
...*coughs* "Girl". It's a she. Silverseren 20:19, 27 August 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) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryan O'Hara (footballer) (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)

Previously deleted by PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league or in a full-international match. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo 09:19, 27 August 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) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Puedo Sentir (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)

"a free online release" from a "fanzine demo album", no evidence of notability, no source for mentioned award or for that award's notability - song is actually covered from Lena Park. Hekerui (talk) 09:18, 27 August 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. closing early as there seems no doubt in the outcome and noone has said anything for 5 days Spartaz 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Belinda (Rice novel) (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)

Completing nomination for User:69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: Contested prod with no explanation. Redirect to author's page reverted by the same editor, also with no explanation. Article has had no references for almost five years. It fails most of the notability criteria for books, the only possible exception being the fifth, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." I don't think that history has had sufficient time to judge Anne Rice's historical significance yet, so including this on that basis alone is premature. FWIW, I'm a fan of Rice but don't think this meets notability. Hut 8.5 09:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep per fifth criteria.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:43, 27 August 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. There are numerous policy reasons cited to delete the article, mainly copyright violations and POV/attack. None of these reasons - which are policy-based reasons for deletion - have been addressed either in this discussion or by improvements to the article. The keep !votes rely on the view that the article is "well sourced", but it has been amply demonstrated by the delete !voters that sourcing is not sufficient to save the article in light of the other concerns. There is a consensus to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (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)

Following on from Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns this article is also just a collection of news to incriminate Royal Dutch Shell. The article also serves as attack page significantly edited by editor who has had a court case with Royal Dutch Shell. Significant parts of it are copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. (see Knowledge talk:Copyright problems#Extensive use of non-free text). Codf1977 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Well-sourced, and I don't particularly care whether an editor involved with the article has had a court case with Royal Dutch Shell. Does that have any material impact on the sourcing used in the article? It doesn't. Deal with that via standard editing protocols. Don't delete the article because one person editing it has an axe to grind. Copyvio concerns are another matter, surely, but I am equally sure that these concerns can be rectified by editing. Insofar as I have admittedly not taken the time to explore what portions of the article have been copy/pasted, I implore the nominator to remove these portions of the article, given that the nominator is apparently aware of them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I accept your comments, but would like to add that one editor has made 52% of all edits, he is a SPA with regard to Shell and that the amount of work required to fix what is basicly a attack page is IMO out of all proportion to any net benefit this page has on the project. Happy to see the odd section of notable significance merged into Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 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 original prodder. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

AviSynth (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)

Completing the nomination on behalf of 207.81.170.99. Originally they placed a prod with the deletion rationale "not notable according to Noelle pozzi" which was removed with the defense WP:NOTPAPER, the IP then initiated an AfD without rationale. So the concern here is likely WP:N. Pgallert (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep A very specialist type of software. It's very hard to establish notability for software. For a suite of apps like Office, its very easy as its almost universally used. For this type hard. I could create an article about a software product which has only sold 14 copies. Now is that notable. If I told you that sofware runs every electricity utility in the UK. Would that make it notable. The question here, there are only so many of these types of sofware available. There is perhaps less 50 examples of AV stream software. Much less so, when you consider its a product licensed under the GPL. I say keep it. I think the article may be at WP:LENGH and may need trimmed. scope_creep (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete it I tried to earlier and my nomination failed so this is the way to do it nobody cares about this and in an earlier deletion discussion this was raised as an example and so I took that to mean it should be deleted like the other one was. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This vote should not be taken into account, because the nomination is already completed "on behalf of 207.81.170.99", who nominated the article for deletion, and already explained why. People who nominate the article for deletion explain their reasoning in the nomination (and BTW, "not notable according to Noelle pozzi" is a bogus reason), and do not vote in the discussion, which would give them two votes.—J. M. (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Avisynth is a very well known video processing program, and covered enough in online (e.g. 1, 2, 3) and paper (e.g. 1, 2, 3) sources to make it notable.—J. M. (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I wish the serial deletionists would look at both GBooks and GScholar before proposing AfD. It would avoid all this time wasted. I have looked at all the items in list of Software-related deletion discussions for the last few days and I've seen four times that articles are nominated for AfD where it appears to me that no GBooks and GScholar searches were attempted or the searches were discounted in order to justify a pre-existing bias to delete. I'm not a wikilawyer so I won't attempt to quote all the acronyms. However, I think that these four examples show a rush to judgment on the part of the nominators. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Consider particularly important software for many video-related tasks under Windows. Not sure what sources to quote (the best sources for this particular niche are all, unfortunately, not reliable sources per wikipedia's definition... doom9's forum springs to mind), but a google book search turns up several books that appear to discuss it. I'm sure more sources can be found if someone is willing to spend the time to go through the thousands of google results that appear on a search for the software's name. JulesH (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The online sources I mentioned are all reliable sources per Knowledge's definition. The first source is a featured article at AfterDawn.com, which is a standard secondary source. The second one is an article written by Jake Ludington, who is a recognized expert in the field of digital media (he has been cited by PCWorld, for example), and the third one is not a Doom9 forum, but a featured article at Doom9's site (the same thing applies here, too—Doom9 is a widely recognized expert in the field of digital video, for example his annual codec tests have been cited in many places, including Knowledge), so they both satisfy the condition mentioned in the Self-published sources (online and paper) section: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Plus all three sources are just examples, there are other sources on the web, too.—J. M. (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per , , . And that's just the first two pages of GNews hits (winks to Howard). -- Blanchardb -- timed 00:57, 30 August 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

List of same-sex couples (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)

There is a tendency on Knowledge to have a list for every conceivable topic, which is not appropriate to begin with, but regardless, this one takes the cake. It would be equally absurd to have an article listing every notable heterosexual couple throughout history. Furthermore, this type of article has been abused by child molesters advocating for the legitimacy of "pederastic" relationships by using this list and other LGBT articles to push their viewpoint, and unfortunately most editors have been looking the other way, so to speak. With this type of list, POV-pushing is inevitable. It cannot be stated enough, it is absurd to have a list whose sole purpose is to list notable same-sex couples throughout history, as well as using this article to push the views of a fringe clique on Knowledge advocating "pederasty." An article about same-sex relationships in history is one thing, but just a list like this? I mean, really. Let's be reasonable. Knowledge is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Can we being letting go of these lists and merging them into encyclopedic articles worthy of merit? Laval (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete This is an absurd list. Keeping it would be tantamount to encyclopedic perpetuation of bias simply for bias' sake and not for any encyclopedic purpose. I am always open to having someone change my mind by way of reasonable argument (and I recognize I'm not making a strictly policy-based argument in agreeing with the nominator here), but I don't see any encyclopedic value to maintaining such a list, nor do I see its maintenance being practical in any way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Knowledge is not a collection of lists. An article about the way homosexual couples have been treated would be a good idea. Simply listing homosexual couples in a list is absurd. Spoke shook (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete We have an encyclopedic article at Same-sex relationship, but an attempt to list all couples from antiquity to today's latest tabloids, many of which are unsourced and at least one (the "loverboys from Norway", which I have removed) is blatant BLP-violating vandalism? Absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I do think the most notable of these should be kept and included elsewhere. Overall, I agree this is an absurd list to keep. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitley delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I have reviewed the policies and guidelines but didn't find the one that had been breached. So, as per everyone above, my argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that this is an absurd list. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep While i see definite problems with rational inclusion criteria and BLP issues, I think its well documented that this is a notable subject, and that same sex couples stand out as a category or list. the inclusion criteria issues include defining "couple", if not in fact married: how long would two people have to be together to qualify, and how would you measure the notability of a couple separately from their individual acheivements? we definitely dont have a list of heterosexual couples, so too many same sex couples here would be inappropriate. also a problem is what qualifies a couple as same sex: would it be biowomen+biowomen, and biomen+biomen, or would tg couples or bisexual couples with third parties be added? blp issues are obvious, we would have to source each name as self identifying. but, those are issues for the editors of the article. I would say this is at least a notable idea as List of coupled cousins, which is clearly a notable article. Even if you narrow down the definition of same sex couple for the sake of this list, I think we can formulate rational criteria, and I think we have some solid candidates for this article: couples whose same sex status makes them notable within the movement for same sex marriage/same sex partner rights (like couples representing their class in lawsuits before various supreme courts, or couples who have fought together for such rights), couples who have primary notability in other areas (like the arts), but whose same sex status has influenced them in their areas of notability, and historic couples whose relationship is widely discussed. The previous AFD final statement sums it up in my mind. Thincat: remember, sarcasm often doesnt translate well on the internet. i would recommend you clarify that you are !voting keep, not delete (or are you?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Advocacy contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. The political bias becomes clear when you try adding a same sex couple like Laurel and Hardy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • DELETE, absurd list, a list of married couples or bff's4life would be just as goofy. Heiro 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Disagree that "absurd" is a policy reason for deletion. I'm kinda unclear on the bias involved. I appreciate that one editor has actually (uniquely in this discussion, I think) actually cited a WP policy or guideline, but I can't actually agree with the example provided in that !vote. When we've looked at lists of, say, Islamic podiatrists (yes, I just made that up) in the past in my experience, a primary test for the validity of the list was the notability of the topic of Islamic podiatrists, that the two were not simply an intersection of two unrelated sets. Certainly discussions of the experiences of same-sex couples exist and have unique characteristics, we have articles on the subject, from that perspective there's no argument for deletion. The Laurel and Hardy hypothetical doesn't make sense to me either--the article clearly intends to describe "couples" in the romantically linked sense, the exclusion of L&H (unless they were romantically linked, am I missing something?). So, where's the bias? Is it only a "POV" that (pick your favorite pair on the list) are a same-sex couple, or is that an issue for (gasp), sourcing? Someone spell this out for me in small words, because I'm honestly having trouble understanding the policy-based rationale for the delete !votes. --j⚛e decker 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Refactor to include non-contemporary/historical examples only (Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater) -- A list of contemporary same-sex couples might have been notable 20 years ago, but it's not really notable nowadays. !vote to scrap the contemporary part, but keep the more historical examples. Wikignome0530 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Although...if this stays, can I be on here with my boyfriend? --23 Benson (talk) 20:57, 2 September 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Karánsebes (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)

There are literally no reliable sources for this incident's existence. The two books that mention it are in no way acceptable as a source. They are both taken from the work of a 19th century publicist who is essentially unknown and wrote 50 years after the incident allegedly occurred. One might mention that this article deserves to exist because even if the incident did not occur, it still exists in the public consciousness as evidenced by the existence of the two books. However this is not the case, it doesn't exist in the public consciousness, both the books come from small publishers and are completely at odds with normal practice for writing history (one does not even include citations, the other has extremely sloppy footnotes). I urge anyone who is considering voting "keep" to do a minimal amount of research about this incident. The fact that so few sources exist for a modern (after 1500) incident that supposedly claimed so many lives is absolutely inconceivable. For anyone that is considering voting keep because the article exists in other languages, I would like to point out that these other articles use the same exact sources (or translations of) and were possibly created with English translation software. The fact that this article has existed for six years is a travesty to everything that Knowledge hopes to represent. For those that think the article should continue to exist to explain why it is mentioned at all, I only point to the Knowledge original research policy. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Concur with nominator's analysis and direction regarding anybody looking at this article. I should hope that a source merely existing as a book doesn't automatically render it the qualification of "reliable." Given the nature of the event -- which would be a staggering, almost hideously comical "battle" -- it is, and I use this word intentionally, incredible that we have such a dearth of sources beyond one book and one book quoting another book. I haven't found any additional sourcing in a bit of casual searching on the topic. If anybody else finds something more convincing than the current sources, I'll happily change my vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nomination.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • weak delete. May need more research but really doubtful about the outcome... The few sources I checked say the same: the Austrians, indeed, marched through Karansebes, twice. They retreated in disarray. Nothing worth of note. The number of losses reported during the retreat (the whole march, not just Karansebes) doesn't seem abnormal - they'd lose just as many to diarrhea and desertion without any enemy in sight. East of Borschov 09:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as the claim of 10,000 deaths is not in Gross-Hoffinger, the date is wrong, and there is no evidence that this panic was a notable event worthy of being called "The Battle of Karánsebes", just one embarrassing incident during the course of a long campaign. Karánsebes was not captured as a result of the incident. If anyone can find the "Austrian Military Magazine of 1831" referred to by Schlosser, it may be possible to incorporate information into another article and then redirect (to make recreation of this article less likely). Xanthoxyl 10:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The Östreichische militärische Zeitschrift is online at googlebooks. It seems that what you're looking for is not in the 1831 volume but in 1837! There's an anonymous account of Karansebes episode (pp. 297-301). Good luck with blackletter print. East of Borschov 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for showing me that. It is actually quoting from the first volume of the memoirs of this individual, Auguste de Marmont. Voyage du maréchal duc de Raguse vol.1 p.108 is apparently the original source of the claim of 10,000 dead and wounded during the retreat which in any case does not match other accounts. Marmont also says that the Emperor increased the confusion by firing cannons. This is presented as a morality tale: "So we see that each man should stick to his profession: that sovereigns should reign, ministers govern, generals command troops and fight; and that sovereigns should neither govern nor fight unless Heaven has bestowed upon them a capacity for governance or a genius for command and for combat." The date of the incident is given as 1789, there is no mention of brandy in the memoir, and even Marmont does not style it "The Battle of Karánsebes" or anything similar. The Austrian magazine quotes from previous issues and says that while losses of materiel were considerable, and several officers were shot and killed, no more than 563 men were missing, that most were eventually found, and attributes the difficulties in assessing what happened to engagements with the enemy before and after the panic. Xanthoxyl 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Outstanding, Xanthoxyl & East of Borschov. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:11, 28 August 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pressing (sexual activity) (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)

uncited, unverifiable original research which reads like a how-to and was created with the edit summary "I've done this once and I had an eight minute orgasm. I want other people to know about this" Exploding Boy (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment this is almost an A10, as the article on ejaculation my usually trusty memory has failed me masturbation contains the vast majority some and here too of this information already. At best, this would essentially be a merge and delete, because the subject is notable and verifiable enough (oh, the sorts of things one learns in abnormal psychology) to be included there. I'll have a look through both pages, and see what can be done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:52, 27 August 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 and no !votes for delete. NAC. Armbrust Contribs 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Folies Tour (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)

CSD G11 tag removed for unambiguous advertising. The article is an announcement and overview of an upcoming musical tour to begin March 2011. I propose that the article be deleted according to and in compliance with policy presented in WP:CRYSTAL . Cindamuse (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn; reconsideration and misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 08:36, 27 August 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 was going to be an interesting discussion from the start! However, the main recommendations were to either merge it or to keep it. The consensus is just for keeping the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spieprzaj dziadu! (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 original AFD has been voided because of EEML votestacking (see DRV) and relisted for further discussion. As this is a procedural nomination as the closer of the DRV, I offer no opinion. Spartaz 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge to Lech Kaczynski. It is more encyclopedic to list notable phrases said by a politician in his bio article than to have an article for each phrase he uttered which got reported in the papers or was seized upon by his opponents. We do not have article for each of the many more notable phrases uttered by George Bush and derided by his opponents, for instance. Edison (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a difficult one to make a call on; it does seem to have coverage, but not knowing Polish (and translation tools I've used giving rather incoherent results) it's hard to say what, if any of it, would constitute a . The Polish page for this phrase has the same or less content as this does, so I would say that there's little chance that translating it more reliably will give any differing content here. Merge to Lech Kaczynski is my leaning, but it might help if someone who could better evaluate the inevitable Polish links that Google gives us weighed in on the reliability and/or independence of results; overall though, I can't say I would be opposed to deletion. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, this is the most notable and widely-known quote from the Polish political scene of the last decade. Of 17 quotes by Kaczynski, it appears first in the Wiadomosci newspaper's list, and the paper describes it as "of cult status" ("Słowa o statusie dziś już kultowym"). As the WP article notes, it was even cited by Janusz Palikot, another MP, and thrown back at Kaczynski - an act for which Palikot was investigated by the public prosecutor. It is cited on TV, in film and in computer games. This phrase has its own history. That is surely self-evident. Malick78 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best merge to Lech Kaczynski. I voted for deletion last time. At that time the article's sources consisted of two broken dead links and a transcript to the conversation that is the subject of the article. And also, already by that time, this has become old news in Poland. So even by that time NOT NEWS already applied. And also at that time, the article was dangerously flirting with BLP violations. Since that time some more sources have been added - all of which basically show that at one point in time this was "news" in Poland. But Knowledge is NOT NEWS. Also, links to a google search which show that the phrase has been mentioned in news in Poland in 2010 have been provided. But why is that? Probably because the subject of the article, the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, died in an airplane crash this year - and undoubtedly some newspapers recounted this anecdote when summarizing his life, after his death. But Knowledge is still NOT NEWS. I note that, for example, even the much more famous line "I did not have sex with that woman" doesn't have an article (it redirects to the Lewinsky affair) on Knowledge - and it shouldn't since Knowledge is NOT NEWS. Since the subject of the article died in a horrible accident this year, I guess BLP no longer applies. But there is still no point to this article and it should be deleted.radek (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - just to add, the creator of the article, Malick78, also appears to insist on keeping some completely irrelevant links in the "See Also" section . One link is to an "an ancient Slavic feast" and the other to a 19th century poem by Adam Mickiewicz. Why? These have nothing to do with the subject of the article at all, except the common use of the word "Dziady". But as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Polish will tell you the word "Dziady" does not even mean the same thing across these articles. In the poem and the feast "Dziady" means "Ancestors" and carries positive connotations. Sort of "wise old men". In the Kaczynski saying "Dziad" means "decrepit old man", "old coot" etc. and carries decisively negative connotations. This basically appears to be a case of "article padding" since there really isn't much to write about otherwise.radek (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to other users: Radek aka Radeksz was a member of the Eastern European Mailing List which coordinated efforts offline to outvote other editors. His vote in this ADF last time was one of the reasons the AFD was annulled. He was banned last December from involvement in any Eastern European articles or linked pages but that was rescinded in June because he promised to be good. From his above comments he seems to have returned to one of the scenes of his crimes, and I shall be reporting him for it.
  • As for his points, Kaczynski is dead so BLP has nothing to do with this. That's just "comment padding" I presume :) I reinstated the Dziad links because it's the same word as in the phrase and shows the transformation of it over time! That's surely of interest to readers. The fact that a member of the EEML had deleted the section rang an alarm bell of course... Malick78 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I was on the mailing list. But I never "committed a crime" here, nor was I canvassed in any way, last time or this time for my vote. It's just simply an article that deserves to be deleted. I'm not sure what you're going to report me for. Expressing my opinion? And the reason I left that comment on your talk is because you were making personal attacks against me on other people's talk pages, not to mention being rude on my own page as well.
The section should be deleted (actually the whole article should be deleted or merged) because it has nothing to do with the article. I note that the current featured article on the main page Hurricane Bob (1985) does not have a See Also link to Bob or Robert the Bruce or Bobby Kennedy or anything else irrelevant. Same thing. Just like NOT NEWS applies to the article as a whole, NOT A DICTIONARY (particularly, not a Polish dictionary) applies to this section.radek (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
And btw, last time around, the first person to vote delete was current member of ArbCom User:Hersfold. At any rate, any closing admin is of course free to ignore my vote and opinion here. But the article's still delete worthy.radek (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
One more observations: to the extent that the article is based on some news sources, there are chunks of the article text which are direct (google?) translation of the original - i.e. possible COPYVIOS. For example, the text "The phrase has been repeated in various television programmes, notably the sitcom Świat według Kiepskich ("The World According to the Kiepskis") and cult cartoon Włatcy móch. It is used in the Polish versions of the computer game The Witcher and also appears in a milder form ("Zjeżdżaj, dziadu" - "Get lost, old man") in the translations for the animated films Astérix at the Olympic Games, Open Season and The Simpsons Movie." is a very very close, almost word for word translation of the text "Pojawiło się też w jednym odcinku serialu "Włatcy móch" oraz w kilku odcinkach serialu "Świat według Kiepskich", a także w polskiej wersji gry komputerowej "Wiedźmin". Przedostało się nawet (w złagodzonej formie "Zjeżdżaj, dziadu") do polskich wersji filmów animowanych "Sezon na misia" i "Simpsonowie: Wersja kinowa". Słowa te można było także usłyszeć w polskiej wersji filmu "Asterix na Olimpiadzie". " - the main difference is just the ordering of the sentences but they're pretty much verbatim, even up to the parentheses for the "milder form".radek (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Wiadomosci article you mention lifted two sentences from the Polish version of WP :) :) :) :) This version of the page from Jan 2008 has "Pojawiło się też w jednym odcinku serialu "Włatcy móch" oraz w kilku odcinkach serialu "Świat według Kiepskich". Przedostało się nawet (w złagodzonej formie Zjeżdżaj, dziadu) do polskich wersji filmów animowanych Sezon na misia i Simpsonowie: wersja kinowa." The Wiadomosci article's last sentence mentions the date 23 February 2008 and would seem to therefore postdate the WP article. What this shows is a) that Wiadomosci copied two sentences (even admitting the use of WP here Radeksz), b) that Wiadomosci rates the Polish WP article highly and c) that Wiadomosci confirmed the accuracy of the WP article. :) Malick78 (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well it does look like the source in this instance copied Polish Knowledge so this isn't a copyvio(though there are other passages that are also close copies of sources); but what this shows is that Wiadomosci is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used - we don't use Polish wikipedia as a source. and this doesn't show at all that "Wiadomosci confirmed the accuracy of the WP article" or anything of the kind.radek (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, it shows that your research was incomplete. Wiadomosci, aka Wirtualna Polska, is a respected news outlet and the sixth most popular webportal in Poland. You and I are not so respected or popular. Let's bear that in mind and give them some credit :) As to them using WP, I guess that's something to do with their mother company's partnership agreement with Wikimedia. Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, seriously wikipedia is not a tabloid, it's a encyclopedia for crying out loud. At most the Spieprzaj dziadu incident deserves a line or two in the Kaczynski article.  Dr. Loosmark  11:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume he came here because of the automatic notification at Poland-related articles for deletion, as I did. Don't get paranoid.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
:) Sorry, once bitten... Malick78 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski is correct. Malick78 may I suggest you stop commentating on everybody who votes for delete or merge? We know your position, please let other express theirs in peace as well.  Dr. Loosmark  12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused. I've only commented on you and Radeksz. Others I've responded to in the hope of producing constructive dialogue, something which is generally seen as useful. Malick78 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So far you have commented and responded to everybody who didn't vote the same way as you did. Just imagine if everybody would behave like you, this page would be a total chaos.  Dr. Loosmark  12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, "You forgot Poland" was not the most famous quotation of Bush's time in office. Nor was it used in political ads by the opposition party, nor did it appear on t-shirts or coins, and nor did it appear in films. There are many phrases which have disappeared after brief notoriety, but "Spieprzaj dziadu" doesn't seem to be one of them. Malick78 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here's a book from a major academic publisher saying that this phrase has come to exemplify lack of respect of politicians for their electors. This article from Gazeta Wyborcza in 2009 (i.e. years after the original incident and before Lech Kaczyński's death) says that public prosecutors have consulted linguists from many higher education establishments about the meaning of the phrase, and this one, headlined 'Events that changed the city: "Spieprzaj, dziadu"' chooses to pick out the phrase in its headline for an article about the most influential events in Warsaw over the course of 20 years. I've only scratched the surface of the sources available online, but this is clearly enough to demonstrate notability. For the avoidance of doubt I'll add that I'm fluent in Polish, so I'm not relying on machine translations for my assessment. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The book from the major academic publisher you link to "Słownik polszczyzny politycznej po roku 1989" is a "Dictionary of Polish political phrases since 1989"; per Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary it undoubtedly contains entries on many phrases which shouldn't have Knowledge articles.radek (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Radeksz, please keep up. The fact that a dictionary mentions a phrase doesn't mean that that phrase's article in WP is acting like a dictionary :) Malick78 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Malick, will you please quit it with the personal attacks and the rude condescension, like "please keep up"? You are obviously very emotionally invested in this article, but that is no excuse for continually attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
So, keeping up, the point obviously is that a fact that a dictionary of political phrases mentions the phrase is no indication of notability.radek (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that some of Malick's interjections are unhelpful, but what about the other sources that I mentioned? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still thinking and considering them. Atm I think they are sufficient to support a merge to Lech Kaczynski, where they could be used, but I'm not yet convinced they're enough to justify a stand alone article. Let me think a bit more about it.radek (talk) 23:03, 2 September 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. No clear-cut consensus has developed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

List of wealthiest people in Uganda (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 seems to violate WP:LISTS - essentially it is sourced from a single source, and is comprised of many many redlinked individuals and a very few bluelinked individuals. The only comparable article that I could find was List of wealthy Canadians, which by contrast is almost entirely bluelinked. I'm not really sure how to handle it, whether RFC would be a better venue for it than AFD.-- Syrthiss (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 04:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is so dependent on a single source, including adopting the categorization of the listed people used by that source, as to risk being a copyright violation. I might reconsider if the article were rewritten so as to attempt to actually rank who are the richest people in Uganda. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly defined list - tag it for more refs and move on. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 27 August 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 Staggered Crossing. clear consensus that he is not notable/doesn't meet WP:BAND, at least I will keep a redirect link to the band's article JForget 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David E.G. Marshall (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. Was created and extensively edited by the subject (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), and has WP:N issues. Recommend deletion so the article can be recreated by an unrelated source to encourage independent verification. elektrikSHOOS 03:59, 27 August 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Roland Risser (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. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:58, 27 August 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. no real consens on whether it passes WP:GNG/WP:N JForget 14:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

InCa3D (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. Software with no indication of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 03:49, 27 August 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 Speedily deleted as G10 . No matter how you slice it, reporting an unconvicted allegation against a living person violates WP:PERP. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Enright (filmmaker) (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)

Notable only for one event, the outcome of which isn't yet known. If anything, probably belongs in an article about the event itself, an article we don't (yet?) have, rather than at his own name. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete An obvious and highly prejudicial BLP1E. Hopefully this will be snowed to avoid the article having to sit around for seven days to the subject's detriment.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    It's at least the 3rd article that's been created about him today; the others have been speedied for one reason or another. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete dude (allegedly) gets drunk, does something dumb, gets arrested. No evidence whatsoever this is anything that could even remotely be in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am opposed to deletion prior to expiration of the seven day period. I have found that in cases like this, the subject's wikipedia article is usually the least biased source of information out there, because it is so highly watched, etc. Others may disagree with my view, but when i google michael enright news articles, you get much more horrible and biased stuff than our standards would ever allow. As to the merits, the event itself seems to merit coverage somewhere, but its not clear where. Perhaps under Park51, but its hard to know for sure yet.--Milowent • 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete already. This article has already been speedily deleted more than three times today (various titles). I'm not going to list all of the problems here since they are patently obvious. Frankly it should be speedily deleted again, if just for WP:NOTNEWS.  Thorncrag  03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is worth mentioning in the Park51 article however. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:07, 27 August 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 Cary, North_Carolina#Mayors. If there's anything worthwhile to be merged from the history, it can be. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cary, North Carolina mayoral election, 2007 (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 article about an election in a minor city. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:25, 27 August 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonya Kearns (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)

Only known for a single role. Article completely unsourced magnius (talk) 02:21, 27 August 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) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Grady (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

-- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 August 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) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Earthbound3ds (mother 2 remake) (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 crystal ball article about a game that may or may not come out sometime in the next two years. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 27 August 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) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeros Ltd. (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. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep As far as I can tell, It has significant coverage to pass WP:Notable.--E♴ (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious piece of spam supported by sources which are primarily press releases or press release like. The article reads like a press release. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:11, 27 August 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. Per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Passaredo Transportes Aéreos Flight 2231 (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 crash of no significance. No deaths and minimal media coverage means it's just not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT would be relevant here. C628 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm all in favor of improving articles, but only when there's a good reason to, and I see this article as lacking that. Unless it leads to major consequences, there's nothing this is notable for. Unlike other recent crashes, this received minimal coverage, and it hasn't had any repercussions. A similar article I looked at, Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836, was IMO notable for worldwide and widespread coverage, as well as sparking new safety recommendations. This incident lacks all of that. C628 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the aircraft is a hull-loss and the Aviation Herald source indicates pilot error on approach and the existence of a berm immediately before the runway. The aircraft suffered a tail strike as well as landed short of runway. It was dropped in place. As to the Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836 article you cite, nothing in it states that it sparked any new safety recommendations. It just has a lot of details filled in on the parameters of the accident and how many hours the pilots have on the type. You couldn't have found a better example of an article like this stub we're voting on. :) --Mareklug 08:07, 28 August 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Westmoreland Place Shopping Precinct, Bromley (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 meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Derild4921☼ 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I cleaned it up a bit, but it still is quite messy and hard to read. A Heymann improvement is needed to change my vote. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I userfied a previous version instructing the author to provide references. Instead they repost and merely add trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with this article? This was a genuine place and I disagree that it is messy and hard to read, it is basically a discription of the building with a list of all the shops that were there what references would you like? I can add them if you like. I didn't see your message about adding more referances but there are a lot of articles with less referances. FYI about 99.9% of Knowledge is trivia
    • Sources are needed, but they have to follow WP:RS. Also it is the fact that all it has is a description is why i put it up for deletion. Articles must have encyclopedic value. Sections such as history and others would keep it from deletion. Derild4921☼ 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value. Agree with User:Derild4921 that history, or other significance is needed to keep this alive. First of its type? Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright? (those are examples of the kind of thing needed). --Quartermaster (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete.This is non notable. It has no references and that is a symptom of how trivial the subject is. Seriously "Unit 1 Barclays Bank (1967 - 1993)" who cares, who has the time to dig through whatever archive that this fact is buried in who else would ever check them should someone do so? Hence original research to boot.Dejvid (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the fact it was a BT phone exchange and the first shopping centre in Bromley not good enough? Or that it had a sub post office? I have seen thousands of articles with no value or referances whatsoever and they have not been taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmseven (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are thousands of articles with no value or references whatsoever that have not been taken down. That's not a defense of keeping this article, it's a description of the size of the task those of us involved in cleaning up wikipedia are facing. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not about being first, or last, or worst, or one among thousands. It's about being documented, in depth, by multiple independent reliable sources. Where is this subject already documented by the world? (If you think that there are other articles for not actually documented subjects in Knowledge, point them out. Do your research properly first, though. It's not enough to just read the article, or have a guess.) Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Shopping centers of this minor nature are not notable, unless there is some special reason, and the attendance of some stars at the opening of a shop there is not special enough. We to use the word, notability, rather than merely unreferenced to indicated that the references had to be about something worth the inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge the first two paragraphs (only) to Bromley or the bit of Bromley where it is or was. The rest is non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although "first shopping centre in Bromley" has a possibility of making it WP:Notable, like Uncle G said...It's about being documented. Find a reliable citation for that and we might have something worth holding on to. Until that point, this very PRO-Shopping Center editor has to go with Delete. Exit2DOS 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Saying it is "pro shopping centre" is dumb, it would be like saying that the wikipedia entry is pro wikipedia. The article is about a shopping centre and so it obviously mentions it is a shopping centre, it is probably more pro phone company too as BT is mentioned and even more pro Bromley because it mentiones it is in Bromley. Also how can many of you say this artical does not comply to Heymann standards when your own wikipedia articles on your usernames dont comply to Heymann standards their self. Not all things can be varified via the internet because the internet was not as popular before the building was renovated in 1996 and so there were the 3 references added. Also where are the references I have come accross some one's articale who had horse pictures on their profile but there was no references to say they were horses, they are obviously horses but there is no backup references to show it, just as the current RBS building at Westmoreland Place is obviously there, it is over 10 floors and many people pass it when passing through Bromley South station but just because there is not a website referencing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmseven (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 September 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) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rowena Sánchez Arrieta (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)

Keyboardist who fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Has won one competition, which doesn't establish notability... DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:53, 13 August 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, 20 August 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 August 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 185638 Erwinschwab. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Erwin Schwab (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 article appears to fail the notability guidelines. Being an amateur astronomer is non-notable and having an asteroid named after you is insufficient unless there is demonstrable significant impact in independent sources. Everything in this article exists in 185638 Erwinschwab so a re-direct may be appropriate. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Local news coverage in German, which was buried in the external links. I've added some info from those sources (and a reference to his giving a public lecture at his job) and referenced the article more clearly and thoroughly. There are a number of others with the same name, complicating search, but there are 2 newspaper articles about him; I'd feel happier if someone can find one more, but in my judgment that enables him to squeak by as notable. I suspect the article creator was nervous about using foreign-lang articles as references, but they are permissible.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 13 August 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, 20 August 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 August 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) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ceremony of Fire (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 compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 20 August 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 August 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. There is an article to be written here, but as the Delete votes point out, merely throwing together various controversial incidents is original research. I will userfy this if anyone would like to make an attempt at fixing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia scandals (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 original research/POV list of apparent "scandals" (Malaysian national football team?) followed by essay. I have to admit G10 crossed my mind. Mkativerata (talk) 05:21, 20 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a large number of scandals per country. Reformat the article for standard naming (per the scandal lists) and wikify. Some of the entries may need seperate articles. scope_creep (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is built by original research - grabbing reliable sources about individual issues and lumping them together into a single topic that is not usually discussed together. We should not use the individual wikipedian's judgement as to what should be included. The sources, when included, often never refer to the incident as a scandal (or one of its synonyms). This is pure OR, and as such should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 31 August 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) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Amber awards (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)

restored after PROD deletion - No indication that these awards have received independent coverage outside press releases from organisers and winners. Fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I've found and added a major newspaper citation who ran a story about the winners last year - its from the Sydney Morning Herald. There was also a story in one of the two print advertising and media monthly magazines which i could chase in over the next week. And there's also media coverage emerging now for the 2nd Awards which are being announced on 16th September 2010. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 23 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lankiveil. Like most trade awards focused on a very specific industry, the only people who really seem to care are those who've actually won them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how its notable. Perhaps in 10 years if it's still running, but a lot of these trade awards start up with good intentions, and die with lack of funding. scope_creep (talk) 19:23, 27 August 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 HijackThis. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merijn Bellekom (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)

Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No external reliable sources. LK (talk) 09:04, 20 August 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 August 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. consensus that the individual meets WP:PROF. JForget 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Paradi Mirmirani (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 individual lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:08, 20 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
The distinction is erroneous. It is what a person is famous for that makes them notable. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
But we cannot include any information that is not sourced to reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources from which to write a bio, then what else can we write about, than what the person is famous for, in which case we have a news report, and not a biography. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:04, 31 August 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto Chan (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 radiologist in London, known mainly for the fact that he was sacked after whistleblowing. Of local interest only, wrote two books, no other claims to notability. JFW | T@lk 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: same user also created ABC of Emergency Radiology and Ultrasound in Emergency Care authored by the subject. Should they be included? JFW | T@lk 15:04, 20 August 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 August 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. though there seems to be agreement that improvements are enough to Keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OECC (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)

Reads like an ad. Another user tried to AFD this but Twinkle glitched out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my comments now since the rewrite and remove myself from the discussion as I do not have the knowledge in this area to say either way. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably keepable but would need to see a really convincing source or two to be sure - this seems to be a large and long-running convention. The way that the article is written doesn't do it any favors and with a topic like this it can be difficult trawling for sources. I've had a quick look; I couldn't see anything "knockout" that convinced me of notability, but the impression I got from academic and other sites is that this is a fairly important event within its field. This is specialist stuff, though - do we have any optoelectronics experts on Knowledge we could get opinions on? TheGrappler (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I will bow to the expert opinion of Materialscientist who suggests to delete. TheGrappler (talk) 21:12, 27 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per multiple IEEE and university sources. Examples: U Tokyo, IEEE Xplore1 IEEE Xplore2 The OptoElectronics and Communications Conference (OECC) has been a signature event in the area of optoelectronic and optical communications. Dr.K.  03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    IEEE sponsors the conference. The first 2 sources above are just inviting posters. The third one is a short note about the conference published as an article in lesser known journal. Its abstract is unique for a science conference "With its superb facilities, professional service, and sophistication, the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre was selected to be the conference venue. It is also internationally known as the best exhibition and convention center in Asia for its excellence in hosting some of the world's greatest events." - SPAM. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any notability criteria custom-made for conferences. Therefore I thought that IEEE Xplore and some University recognition would establish notability per WP:RS. Granted the abstract is touting the venue a bit more than normal but site-related spam is endemic to all conferences. Just show me a conference where they admit that the conference venue has problems. The venue-related cheerleading by the organisers is expected for any conference, otherwise who would go there to present anything. Coverage of conferences by third-party, non academic related sources is normally sparse and so establishing notability for a conference is not easy. If this conference is regional and not global, I still think that if it is recognised by IEEE it should be given a chance. But you put so many criteria (publishing on CD-ROM etc.) that you may know of some policy that I don't. So I am not going to dispute this any further. Dr.K.  06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    (i) That text is an abstract of an article written for "the number three most-cited journal in telecommunications", it has a doi number and a status of recognized peer-reviewed article - that is why I said it is highly unusual. No printed proceedings with ISSN/ISBN number means the conference reports can not be used on WP and in respectable secondary sources - crossing the notability. IEEE sponsors many thousands of conferences. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K.  16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per notability concerns: local (Asia based) conference. The board consists of one person, the Vice President of Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Proceedings are not published (CD-rom version only). Although conducted from 1996, the coverage of the events is very sporadic. Very few Google hits (for a 15-years old event), most being echoes of the conference itself. There are hundreds like this in this field only. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete it These convention center buildings in every town are booked every weekend and that doesn't mean the conferences in them are important and this one isn't. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Its ideal factual and reference information for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if the board consists of 1 person, the article is not about the board. Its well established, well attended and gets between 400 and 600 papers submittted each years. If you do a search there are a fair number of conference articles. The article needs to wikified and cleanup. scope_creep (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't expect conventions get much general press coverage, but this one seems to have enough to be notable. Not all, but some of them are articles announceing the conference, but what else could be expected to be written, even about a very proiminent conference in an esoteric field? Some of them are indeed reports on technologies presented at the conference, which would satisfy notability, in my view. (1) Computing & Control Engineering, Dec2003/Jan2004, Vol. 14 Issue 6, p4-5; (2) Telephony, 6/7/2004, Vol. 245 Issue 12, p25-25; (3) IEEE Communications Magazine, Apr2005, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p22-24, (4) Laser Focus World, May2005, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p17-22; (5) IEEE Communications Magazine, May2007, Vol. 45 Issue 5, p44-44; (6) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2007, Vol. 45 Issue 11, p42-42; (7) Nature Photonics, Sep2008, Vol. 2 Issue 9, p527-528, 2p, 2 Color Photographs; (8) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2008, Vol. 46 Issue 11, p20-20, 1p, 1 Color Photograph; (9) IEEE Communications Magazine, Nov2009, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p20-24, 3p, 4 Color Photographs; (10) Laser Focus World, Jun2010, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p6. --Bsherr (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It still needs revising (there are no citations for the article's claim that this is especially important compared to other conferences, and external links should be in an external links section instead of the main text), but conferences having their own pages doesn't seem to be very unusual (ISSCC is a good example of how to do this well; that's one of the more important computer engineering conferences in North America). If it turns out not to be noteworthy, merge it into an appropriate list of conferences. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - So far I see no demonstration on notability for this conference. For example other conferences generate the following:, , , , , and etc., etc. This confrence appears to have no such published contributions.
In addition, reading some of this conferences "final reports" and "conference reports" appears to show this organization is focused on commercial advancements rather than the science of optioelectronics, although some science may be discussed by key speakers (it is difficult to determine). For example, the 2006 report begins with a commercial perspective. The 2009 report ( and ) has workshop topics such as "Specialty Optical Fibers, Where is the Next Big Breakthrough?", "Optical Fiber Sensors: Overview and Opportunity, "Next-generation Broadband Optical Access – Future Challenges", and so on. I admit there are some science topics that follow, but I am unable to find any published papers (or books) generated from these conferences from 1996 to the present. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep (instead of possible keep) because - I did manage to find a large collection of published papers (accessible online) generated from the the 14th Optoelectronics and Communications Conference (OECC) 2009, on IEEE Explore, here . Does this change any opinions? Perhaps the previous conferences are print only or CD-ROM only. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have found what appear to be "proceedings" from the first, second, third, and fifth OECC conferences, with ISBN numbers for one or two: , , , . Then there are books which cite works from the various conferences , , , , , and it seems there are many more books which cite papers from these conferences . ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That type of hyperbole isn't unusual in conference keynote speeches and the like, so I wouldn't call it a red flag myself. I'd have to look at the papers themselves to assess academic/scientific merit (which I would only be able to do next week, as I'm about to go on vacation). Even then, industry conferences/trade shows can be noteworthy too. Regarding academic notability, IEEE seems to be at least tangentially involved, which is a good sign for it being at least a little noteworthy, but on the flip side, IEEE is involved with hundreds of conferences (as are other countries' equivalent organizations). The only good way to check academic notability is to see how widely-cited papers from it are at unrelated events, which would take far more work than I'm willing to put in. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, no, I wouldn't call the promotional language a huge red flag. In any case, it seems I have begun to establish academic notability. I see you haven't gotten to the paragraphs where I discovered a collection of published works from the 2009 confrence (online). I provided a link. Also, I discovered what appear to be published proceedings, and I am sure this is no surprise. However, I did manage to find a good number of books which cite works from the various conferences. I provided links above. I will probably change from Delete to "needs a serious rewrite". Yes, this has been a tough nut to crack (have fun). ---- 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw those paragraphs, and assumed (admittedly without testing) that, like most such publications, the full content of the articles within the proceedings would be accessible only by subscribers to the relevant society of researchers (this is how IEEE's enormous collection of publications is set up, as well as more specialized organizations like SPIE; it's pretty much industry standard as far as I can tell). If this is an IEEE conference, I should have access to the full text of the proceedings from work, but I don't have such access from home, and will be away from the university until next week (leaving for vacation Wednesday, packing Tuesday). So I can't tell you how scientific-looking or commercial-looking the actual conference content is.
Publication of the proceedings themselves isn't particularly strong evidence for notability (all academic conferences, large or small, do that). The citations by books not directly affiliated with the conference, on the other hand, are indeed a useful indicator of notability. Best, of course, would be digging through one of the online academic citation databases to find unrelated journal articles (best) or conference papers (adequate) citing papers from this conference, and compare the average number of citations per OECC paper to the same metric for papers from some known-to-be-noteworthy conference in the same field. But, per above, that's probably an impractical amount of work. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I wish to notify all interested parties that I did a small overhaul of this article, and perhaps now it qualifies as notable. This organization may have achieved notablility because of the following: the publications of annual Proceedings since 1996, the various annual conferences which are independently cited in various books, and the discovery of two sets of published scientific articles online, which are generated from the OECC (in 1999 and 2009 - see artticle).---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep per SQ's overhaul and research from other people. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:30, 2 September 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) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Unity MacLean (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. Non-notable office manager. No stand-alone notability. COI/self-promotion issues. Article is entirely written by the subject (Unitymac) , and her son (Lmaclean111) . WP is not a resume service. SteamboatBilly (talk) 16:52, 20 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't see anything that would give this person a claim to be included in an encyclopedia. She had a cool job and I'm sure she'd be fun to have a chat with, but that isn't enough to get into an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 27 August 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. While not all of the main participants from the article talk page chose to comment here, I did consider the comments on the talk page as well. There are still fundamental verifiablity issues that will need to be settled before this article can be ready for main space. Xymmax So let it be done 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Namoa (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)

Namoa article claimed to be King Josiah Tupou of Tonga in 1830 is contrary to Tongan official history. This claimed by the original author can not be verified independently and the sources the claimed is based on is unreliable and biased. All these conflicting issues have been discussed in the Namoa Talk pages.Puakatau (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The MAIN Question

1. Who was Tupou that was baptised as Josiah Tupou in 1830?

2. What independently reliable sources that will verify your claim apart from the opposing family claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puakatau (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 August 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 August 2010 (UTC) — Puakatau (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as the original author has not verified her story with independent, reliable first hand account or verified by a third source. Her claim that Namoa is Josiah Tupou is based on a Biased source of family genealogy and is not a published work but of SELF PUBLISHED as their Niumeitolu Genealogy was published or created by themself. Original author ignore the request for discussion. Puakatau (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Incubate and Delete: I've gone through the talk page looking only at the article creator Anacrossan's (a/k/a Lolopapalangi) comments and ignoring the arguments made by and against Puakatau. When it comes down to the final analysis, Anacrossan, who unquestionably has the WP:BURDEN here only cites two direct sources to prove that Namoa is who Anacrossan claims him to be: a family tree which has not been shown to be WP:RELIABLE and, especially, not self-published and a journal by a Rev. Turner, available only in the original handwritten (i.e. self-published) manuscript, which Anacrossan admits here that he does not have at hand and hasn't said where to find. The rest of Anacrossan's proof based upon the title (or, depending on who you want to believe, clan name) Toupou, birth order, mother's names, etc., is original research even if the sources he quotes are reliable and say what he says that they say. Though Anacrossan continues to beg for time to add sources, the article has existed for over three years without those sources being added. I recommend incubation over userfication because incubation sets a at–least–fuzzy deadline for improving the article and doesn't allow the page creator to simply move the article out of userspace back into mainspace on his/her own volition. Let me note that this "delete" vote is not an endorsement of, condemnation of, or comment upon Puakatau's work or position in regard to this or other Tongan historical matters, but simply a recognition that Anacrossan has not met WP:BURDEN. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Does it take three years to add Inline Citation? There is no inline citation that will verify this claimed story. It took me a few months to check and have found that Tupou was someone else not what Anacrossan claimed. Puakatau (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
NOT Self Published? I dont agree with TransporterMan notself-publishedcomment before. If I refer to the guidance on WP:SPS
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable."
Anacrossan the original editor is the author of the Niumeitolu Family Tree which were posted on their personal page on Bebo. Anacrossan claimed that she is right or expert based on her own Self Published Family Tree or she is a family to Namoa. The family tree is a Microsoft Org Chart.
I think that means it is WP:SPS. The second point is born 1775? Capt Cook visit Tonga in 1777 and recorded his experience. The Tongan could not write or even know what year was it. How did 1775 come about with no Inline Citation just indicate the ridiculous of the story.
I believe when you see its a duck, we should called it a duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puakatau (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You've misread my comment Puakatau, I agree with you, the genealogy also appears to me to probably be self-published, and a handwritten journal is, by definition, self-published. I said, in pertinent part, "a family tree which has not been shown to be ... not self-published". Too many "nots" in that sentence, I suppose. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:00, 3 September 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. Article substantially changed since nomination, which caused me to give less weight to the earlier delete comments. Xymmax So let it be done 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Speech: Race and Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" (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 book fails WP:BK. Don't get me wrong, Obama's Speech most certainly is notable. But this book is not. No significant coverage, perhaps 1 review. Google hits show Obama's speech, not this book. Note: The Huf Post Salit source is not a review, it is a footnote, i.e. less than a trivial mention. Lionel (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

KEEP! I watched the book panel on C-Span and it was wonderful, I added the reviews from Publisher's Weekly, Salon and the LA Times as well. There was more, I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohhosnap (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 August 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 August 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 New York Mets minor league players. There is consensus that the subject is not sufficiently notable for an article, but no consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be done 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Owen (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)

Someone originally nominated this for speedy delete, however I think it would be better off with AfD. The reason for this AfD is that the guy isn't notable enough yet. Alex (talk) 20:54, 20 August 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 August 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) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith (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 think the suibject fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. There are lots of sources given in the article, but most are written by the subject or affiliated with her. I can't find significnat coverage in RSs about the professor that would make this assistant professor and deputy director of a research center notable yet. Her blog seems to be the closest route to meeting WP:N/WP:BIO, but I don't think it gets her there. Novaseminary (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment The two sources you added cite her only in passing and are not about her. They are no different than other citations to her work. WP:GNG requires "sources (that) address the subject directly in detail." These do not. Novaseminary (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's true. They are citing her work or her activities, rather than writing a full fledged article ABOUT her. However, I suspect most people would think even a one-sentence reference in the New York Times, citing research done by a scientist from Iowa, would be unusual enough to establish some degree of notability. And when you say they are "no different" from the other citations, I would challenge that. A citation from UPI or the New York Times IS different from a citation from a blog or small-town paper. Reliable Sources and all that. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment You're right that the UPI and NYT mentions are totally different than a blog citation (and good work replacing non-RSs with those cites, by the way). What I meant was that those cites in context really are not much different as an indicator of notability in the field than a citation in an academic journal. The brief mentions in the sources you added to my mind are not substantial enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. But I do think they inform the WP:ACADEMIC discussion since they were essentially citations to partcular work she coauthored. Like the other commentors, though, I don't think her work has been cited enough, NYT and UPIO notwithstanding, to get her over the ACADEMIC hump. She might get there in the future, though. Novaseminary (talk) 03:48, 25 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree she is certainly not notable for being author at the moment, nor an academic, although I suspect that will come in time. She has been in the public gaze both currently and in the past for her activism. I think it is important for these types of articles to be in WP, as they provide a timeline and additional context for historians. scope_creep (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Does any WP policy or guideline support the idea of keeping articles of not-yet-notable individuals to "provide a timeline and additional context for historians"? I suggest that WP:CRYSTAL requires the opposite. Novaseminary (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also note that her blog, supposedly "ranked" 7th by Nature magazine was not profiled in the Nature article at all. The article profiled the top five. There was really no "ranking" by Nature. Nature used a Technorati list of popular blogs (on which this blog was ranked 4,989) and then picked out those that were written by scientists for the public. I have updated the article to reflct this fact and clarified other information that is actually less noteworthy than the previous versions of the article implied. Novaseminary (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adding to the above observations that her publication record seems very typical of a junior prof (WoS citations 18, 4, 3, 1, ... h-index = 3), it would seem this is a pretty clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Easy to hit lots of false-positives here for the much-more-cited researcher "Tyler C Smith", who may have been at the same institution at one time. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete. GS cites 55, 35,24, 14, 9, 7... identification ambiguous as above but in any case not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
Reply to both of you, about her low scores at Google Scholar: we have already agreed that she does not meet WP:ACADEMIC so that's a dead horse. However some of us are arguing that she DOES qualify as notable, not as an academic, but rather for her high-profile public activism. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment Have you found any sources in addition to the two you noted above? As I mentioned, I don't think those get her over the WP:GNG threshold because they do not "address the subject (Smith) directly in detail"? And it seems others are not convinced, either. Novaseminary (talk) 00:01, 3 September 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) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bodytite (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)

Promotional article for a trademarked liposuction procedure. Would need to be rewritten to become encyclopedic. Could not find reliable, secondary sources to verify notability of the subject. The article's current references are all primary sources from Invasix, the company that owns the trademark. Gobonobo 22:55, 20 August 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 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advertising. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete it like advertising. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP ARTICLE - BodyTite is the only RFAL Liposuction available today and is not the same as Laser Assisted Lipolysis. This is an entirely new cosmetic procedure and as such is worthy of being included in Knowledge so that people can find additional information on this technique as other forms of cosmetic surgery vary considerably.

http://www.americanhealthandbeauty.com/articles/?article=2863 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.169.149 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical reference: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002985.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.169.149 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please support the article to remain on wikipedia

Please support that the article be kept on Knowledge if you have found the article of any interest or useful in its explanation of the RFAL Liposuction procedure, Thank you for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.169.149 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 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.

↑