Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 20 - Knowledge (XXG)

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 delete. Courcelles 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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


Non-notable individual being spammily recreated. Afd will allow speedy deletion in the future. Active Banana ( 21:52, 20 December 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 WP:SYN, cannot find the term in any WP:RS LFaraone 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Branding national myths and symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologistic name for a non- (or not-yet-) notable branding concept or theory. No identifiable Google results or independent coverage of this concept. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:SYN. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that a search tool doesn't match "Branding National Myths and Symbols" anywhere in the body of Sitki's thesis certainly lends weight to the conclusion that contrary to the article no field of research with that name is defined by xem. The thesis abstract at the NLA gives no indication of an intent to define a new field of research, either. Uncle G (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The argument below has satisfied the one concern that I had that was holding off a decision. I suspected that 121.127.204.107 (talk · contribs) might have been Sitki xyrself, and that the apparently false statements in the article about this field of research, that is not in fact defined by the source cited, were rather Sitki's further extension of xyr ideas (which wouldn't have been acceptable here without publication, of course). Clearly 121.127.204.107 is not Sitki. And both that and xyr handwaving below, trying to evade the point that no such field of research as this has in fact been defined at all, by Sitki or by anyone else, has convinced me that the outcome here should be delete. This quite clearly is improper novel synthesis being done directly in Knowledge (XXG) itself, as evident from the arguments made by 121.127.204.107. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep with edits/wikification :-) I feel the theoretical basis for the term 'Branding national myths and symbols' can not be rejected simply because it does not show up on a Google search. A major portion of peer reviewed research is not published in a form that that makes it easily amenable to internet searching. Research of the concepts and theories of 'Branding national myths and symbols' (BNMS) have been researched and published. The title 'Branding national myths and symbols' describes the overarching concept of the research and not the exact title of any particular paper. See the following link to Deakin University, http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/view/DU:30027456 where the PhD thesis 'Myths, symbols and branding : Türkish national identity and the EU' researches the concept and components of BNMS extensively. The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9

    The title of the thesis includes the phrase 'Myths, Symbols and Branding' and the words 'national identity', I don't believe you can argue that every wikipedia article title should exactly match a name or phrase from a particular reference but rather it should concisely communicate the intention of the article.

    If you have any suggestions to reference the material in a manner that will be suitable for a wikipedia entry as well as any editing that is applicable to the text, then please make them.

    I believe the concepts and information contained in the article make a worthwhile contribution on the subject.

    David Cameron

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:SYN. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to UncleG

    The National Library of Australia does not have a copy of the thesis in paper or electronic form, they only have the abstract details, so it is no surprise that you can't find a match.

    David Cameron

    Query to Jimmy Pitt and A Macedonian, a Greek

    Do you have any suggestions concerning the referencing and textual content of the article, it is difficult know where alterations need to be made without some reference point. :-)

    David Cameron

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-22 05:57:42


Query to UncleG

Please advise how you determined that 'Branding National Myths and Symbols' was not present within the body of Sitki's thesis?

David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reference I could find on Sitki's thesis is this, where Hatice Sitki: Myths, Symbols and Branding: Turkish National Identity and the EU is listed under Postgraduate students by Research. I doubt this meets WP:RS standards... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Note to A Macedonian, a Greek

The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.48 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 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 The Santa Clause. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernard the Arch-elf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, unsourced and i have reason to believe a majority of the info is creator speculation. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:12 20 December 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 result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by The wub.

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

This is a made-up word that is not yet notable. The creator is not notable either. T3h 1337 b0y 20:30, 20 December 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. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Yurlyageni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete No references. Maybe consolidate this and other Category:Nigerian Names into a common article. (Nominated by User:Slayer4x4)
  • Comment As there are 9 ghits for this name, four of which are Knowledge (XXG) based and connected to this article, I'm not so sure about the popularity of the name. It could be that the vast majority of the Yurlyagenis have avoided internet mention and live quietly in little grass huts still waiting to be discovered, but I doubt it. The article is hardly informative - are the bearers of this name male, female or either? Who are famous examples? (Who are not-famous examples, even?) Currently, this article takes minimalism to a new level. As the author's other edits (four of them listed) are to do with soccer in Tasmania, I'm not too sure about their expertise in African names, either. I agree with Ged UK that this isn't 'blatant', but could also agree with Slayer4x4 about the second part of the phrase... Peridon (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is a hoax. I can find no evidence for this being a popular name, and virtually none for it as a name at all - except for a football forum where the user is claiming to be Nigerian and located in Liverpool. (An admin of the forum suspects this is not correct, and states that the user's IP is based in Tasmania.) The only other edits of the author are in connection with soccer in Tasmania. This article was created the same day as the name appeared on the forum. The forum (for Everton FC fans) can be seen at http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/22001-hi/ The user of the forum by this name hasn't posted there since. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 24 December 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. Courcelles 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

No references and seemingly no notability, just someone doing their job. Heiro 21:08, 13 December 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. Spartaz 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. No sources exist on the subject itself, no way to expand the article. Prime Blue (talk) 17:47, 20 December 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 Banking in Armenia. Spartaz 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

PROD removed. Single source, close to spam, WP:N, probably also WP:V Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Really not suitable for an encyclopedia. Obviously banks accept deposits. The topic of Armenian banks can have its article, if someone cares to start one. The detailed information on deposit policies would only be of interest to a person doing business with one of the banks. In that case it would be better to get the info first hand from the bank itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is too detailed for Knowledge (XXG) and arguably fails several aspects of WP:NOT. I'm also worried that the material in the article will never be as up-to-date as that on the banks' own websites, which are a much better place for people to look for this type of information. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my opinion to selective merge with Banking in Armenia as a result of the discussion below. I didn't realise that the latter existed until now, and there is probably something that can be salvaged, sourced and merged. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I do think that if Banking in Armenia hadn't existed, then this AfD's finding should've been "selectively trim and rename to Banking in Armenia". (Kitfoxxe was almost there with the first !vote, it's just that s/he didn't find the right title, and seemed unwilling to actually write an article in the big empty space called Armenian banks—which, incidentally, I'm about to redirect to Banking in Armenia.)

    What I don't understand is how one could get from this content to a "delete" !vote; that just seems bizarre.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I was concerned that the material verged on a guide or directory, and that it may be inaccurate, and hence thought that readers were better advised to consult banks' own websites. However, if the merge is selective and the material merged is sourced, I have no problem with that option. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You all three appear to be opining on the basis that what is written here describes one bank's individual banking practices. But the article itself states in the introduction that what it is describing is what is required for all banks by the country's legal system and central bank regulations. The article's author has even tried ineptly (This is xyr first article.) to point to the Central Bank of Armenia as a source. As such "This can be looked up on the bank's own WWW site." is irrelevant. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia of banking as much as it is an encyclopaedia of anything else, and the legal requirements for banking in Armenia, imposed by government/by central bank regulation, are a perfectly valid topic. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine; however, we're not discussing a general topic, we're discussing this particular article. If someone wants to write about the topic, that could be ok -- but that would mean a complete re-write from scratch, with a different title, which is basically the same as delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Wrong. This particular article says outright that it's discussing that general topic. It does so in its introduction. Have you not read it? Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Err... I take your "Wrong" as "Idiot!", so I'm not gonna talk about this anymore. I may also presume that you are one yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Personal attacks are pretty much always a sign of not having a valid argument to use, as is the deliberate and blantantly obvious mis-reading of the word "wrong" as meaning something other than "wrong" just to create a straw man. Now go and read the article to see what it quite clearly says that it's about in its first few sentences. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Incomprehensible fragments of... something. EEng (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdraw from the Bank of Knowledge (XXG). Banks accept deposits, sometimes pay interest, and are regulated. This is not something unique to Armenia. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Selectively merge into Banking in Armenia. Uncle G's got the right of it: the legal requirements for banking in Armenia are a perfectly valid topic and there is a useful attempt at providing a reliable source here. I agree that this material can't remain in this precise form, but all the issues mentioned by the "delete" !voters are fixable by a trim and merge, so per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, that's the way forward. N.B. If the closer finds this article title is to become a redlink, rather than to retain the history under a redirect, then the closer will need to perform a history merge in order to comply with our content licences, so it's noticeably simpler to keep the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 21 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This article has several issues, including

  1. By title, it should address worldwide political parties but actually only discusses the United States.
  2. Its content duplicate other articles such as List of political parties in the United States and History of the United States.

This article was changed to a redirect on December 11, and then submitted to RfD by another editor on December 15. To avoid any appearance of a backdoor deletion, the RfD has been closed, the article restored, and this AfD discussion opened. I personally favor deletion of the article for the reasons stated above. –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable company with only minor mentions in the press marking the opening of the two centres. Notability is not asserted by the article and having just two centres does not make it a chain. Simple Bob (talk) 16:39, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails notability. This is a single character in the book. There is no reason for separate orphaned article. --ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 16:31, 20 December 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. LFaraone 02:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability --ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete As the nom states, this group has not received enough coverage in order to be consider notable according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete unremarkable bike club. article does not assert notability --Biker Biker (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this deletion discussion might merit wider attention.

    I found 13 significant 2 unique news articles on Temple Riders, but all of them argue that the group is remarkable because they defy the "biker stereotype" that "Bikers are supposedly foulmouthed, freewheeling, hard-drinking highway desperadoes", and instead they are law-abiding, sober, well groomed and clean, and they proselytize their religion. The first problem with that claim to notability is that Google News archive has perhaps 3,400 articles about various groups that also "defy the biker stereotype": many of them religious, some oriented to women or law enforcement or the military or retirees or just regular people who like motorcycles. There are news articles dating back 30 years, at least, announcing the remarkable existence of motorcyclists who are not stereotypically thuggish. It's clear that non-stereotypical motorcyclists are not remarkable at all. There is a significant body of writing about the myth-making involved in spreading the biker stereotype, which is covered somewhat in the WP articles Outlaw motorcycle club, Motorcycle club and Hollister riot. This coverage could be expanded, obviously. How and why a media myth exists is notable and well documented, but how does that make Temple Riders notable?

    What if we just accept the news articles at face value, and say that Temple Riders are notable because they are motorcycle club that obeys the law, and does not flout social convention. The problem there is that the reason Hells Angels, Bandidos, etc. are notable is because they break the law and raise hell. How can motorcycle clubs be notable for being stereotypical bikers and also be notable for not being stereotypical bikers? Does this mean motorcycle groups are notable no matter what they do?

Temple Riders articles
MormonTimes.com: Temple Riders rally in central Utah. Andrew Marshall Deseret News. Deseret News. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 5, 2008. p. WEB

Motorcyclists promote Christian values. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Oct 26, 2006. *

Temple Riders defy biker stereotype. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Oct 26, 2006.*

Temple Riders not your typical biker club. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 28, 2006.*

Motorcycles, but not mayhem, drive the Temple Riders. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 14, 2006. *

Temple Riders defy biker stereotypes. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 14, 2006. *

Mild-mannered motorcyclists promote Christian values. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 31, 2006. *

Bike Gang Blends Leather And Book Of Mormon; . Associated Press. Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Fla.: Jan 29, 2000. p. E.7 **

Bikers Take Book of Mormon on Road; . Hannah Wolfson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 26, 1999. p. 53 **

Bike gang blends leather and the Book of Mormon. Hannah Wolfson The Associated Press. The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Sep 28, 1999. p. C.2 **

Mission to ride Mormons on motorcycles aren't out for a Sunday drive; . Hannah Wolfson. Fort Worth Star - Telegram. Fort Worth, Tex.: Sep 24, 1999. p. 23 **

Temple Riders - leather, bikes, religion They're older and ride with copies of Book of Mormon. Hannah Wolfson. Idaho Statesman. Boise, Idaho: Jul 4, 1999. p. 10.a **

Motorcycle Mormons Take the Righteous Ride. Hannah Wolfson. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jul 3, 1999. p. C.1 **

* Reprint of same article. ** Reprint of another article.

--Dbratland (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Now to the real issues I think this group fails significant coverage from secondary sources, Notability is not temporary, and WP:PROMOTION. I feel for the following reasons.
  • "13 significant 2 unique news articles on Temple Riders" dose not establish significant coverage.
  • The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and MormonTimes.com statues as "secondary sources" when It comes to LDS articles is disputable. There entire focuses of those papers is LDS related stories. They are not "independent of the subject" It would be like stating that the 700 club is a "secondary sources" when it come to Christian news. After all Deseret News and MormonTimes.com are OWNED by the LDS church and the The Salt Lake Tribune was started by Elias L.T. Harrison and John Tullidge who disagreed with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'.
  • That leaves only the last six articles. All from pre-2000 and based on the same AP article. Notability is not temporary and if you do a Google News search on this group "Temple Riders" you get ZERO results.
  • It also fails WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is two line and a link to the website of the group.
As to "How can motorcycle clubs be notable for being stereotypical bikers and also be notable for not being stereotypical bikers?", Knowledge (XXG) has nothing to do with stereotypes. The Hells angels are notable because they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't see this being true of the Temple Riders, or the Azuza Street Riders a Christian bikers group who dosn't have a Knowledge (XXG) page.--ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Even though I object to the idea that notability based on nonsensical reasoning -- that non-thuggish bikers are in any way extraordinary -- I think probably we should follow the notability policy somewhat blindly and accept that not only LDS-associated media have covered them, but also the Los Angeles Times, Fort Worth Star - Telegram, Orlando Sentinel, and others have picked up and reprinted the stories that the Salt Lake papers were pushing. Yes, it's lazy journalism, but journalism nonetheless and it indicates that the MSM finds Temple Riders worth talking about.

    While we don't have a page for Azuza Street Riders, we do have Bikers for Christ, Tribe of Judah Motorcycle Ministries, God's Squad and Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, all of which barely, if at all, pass the bar for notability, and none of which includes much critical thought, in violation of the neutrality policy. It might be better to think about merging all of these motorcycle ministries into a single page that summarizes the redundant information about them, along the lines of Christian metal, Christian hardcore etc.

    A merged page would also give room to talk more plainly about the practice of infiltrating and co-opting subversive cultures for the purpose of proselytizing, in much the same way that Harley Owners Group has been an extraordinarily effective marketing tool by co-opting the outlaw biker style in the name of commerce. --Dbratland (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can figure out a merge of some kind, I would be more than happy to agree with you.--ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the how is pretty simple: A main section that describes the common characteristics of these ministries, followed by brief sub-sections that describe what is unique or notable about each individual ministry, leaving out most of the trivial details. I don't think the how of such merge is much of anything; for me it is the when -- I have an ever growing list of such projects and less time than ever. But I think it's worthwhile to keep the article and add a merge of the motorcycling ministry articles to the to-do list for the Motorcycling WikiProject, or one of the religion WikiProjects. Also, FWIW, there is at least a book or two out there on the subject. --Dbratland (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Temple Riders is not a ministry of any kind; instead it's merely an association of people belonging to the same religious denomination (LDS Church) that have a common interest (motorcycles) where they take LDS themed group trips together (to LDS Temples). If they were actually doing some kind of active ministry/outreach/proselyting to the motorcycle sub-culture(s) they might be slightly notable; as it is, they are no more notable than any other hobbyist group that travel together. Novelty does not impart notability, notability is not temporary, and having a couple of silly season/filler articles that got picked up in the media echo chamber means very little. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:39, 21 December 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. Spartaz 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

PROD was contested, opening up AFD. With no press release or officially released information, all details are speculative. While it's possible for an album article to be created before its release, the claims on Turbulences are not verifiable. The entire article is being sourced from an alleged setlist posted on a user-generated wiki-style website. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep I found this article, , which seems to confirm the album's release. However, the setlist seems to be as unreliable as can be, so I would suggest deleting that section until a better source can be found. As I have seen with new album releases, info on new albums leaks out slowly, so if this article is deleted, then it'll need to be recreated in a week or two. Angryapathy (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If details about the secret shows and the setlist are removed, you're essentially left with the same information that's at Rise Against#Turbulences (2010–present). Why have a separate article for this? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Because then it would be a stub from which verifiable information could be added as more info about the album is released. Angryapathy (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
True, but in my experiences, unless someone is willing to take the time to re-write an article down the road, pages created in this fashion end up as dumping grounds for speculation and minor announcements. The track listing being based on an alleged set list is a prime example. It's best to wait until there is something genuinely concrete to say about the album before it's deserving of it's own article. Generally for upcoming albums, Knowledge (XXG) likes to wait until either the title, release date and full track listing have all been officially confirmed, OR one could document the writing and recording in a well-structured multi-paragraph article, such as this revision of In Rainbows created about ten months before its release. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - There has not been enough information confirmed by third party sources for this to become an article... If anything, keep it in userspace until a cover, release date, and tracklist can all be confirmed. ~ ~ : ~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This article fails the WP:WEB and WP:NSOFT guidelines. After removing forum links, the only remaining sources appear to be either tangential mentions or game reviews that could be found for almost any computer game. Note, this article has previously been created and deleted under the name Dark Orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fæ (talk) 15:46, 20 December 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 G2, test page. Largely a duplicate of Markus Persson. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This may very well be an A7 article. The "sources" provided are to blogs and such; there's not indication that this person meets WP:GNG. Reads more like a vanispamcruft or a resume than a valid encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep, but the title is way off. Renaming to Markus Persson, per coverage at locations like this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Reposted article about a Christian hip-hop record label; no independent sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Some of the label's artists appear notable, so the label name is mentioned in passing in sources about the artists -- but no substantial coverage of the label as such. Large number of GHits, but once such passing mentions are subtracted -- along with blogs, twitter/myspace/facebook links, commercial links for purchasing records, and content mirrored from this very Knowledge (XXG) article -- there's virtually nothing left. I can't find any independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:25, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

bloggy, prosy nn vanispamicruftisement Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:08, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable Nitack (talk) 14:53, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

chatty and name-dropping, but nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable holiday, was created this year, was a redirect but reverted several times. Hopefully this will stop it Delete or redirect and protect. Secret 14:35, 20 December 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. treating as a soft deletion so can be restored immdiately if anyone finds another decent source Spartaz 03:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single reliable (but primary) source on biographical information. Article otherwise based on unreliable source (Wikia) and trivial coverage (composer credit). No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Page has been deleted before, too. Prime Blue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think she qualifies as notable or I wouldn't have written the article--just because a previous article was deleted says nothing about her notability, only that it was not established in the previous article. The article is expandable, I've already added some further primary references. Commercial composers are no less composers because of the the usage of their work. Note that more traditional players of classical music like ensembles and orchestras are noticing the popularity of the Nintendo game music--I've added a couple of references to show this. Also, she is a woman successful in what is considered a man's field. She meets the following criteria from WP:COMPOSER:
  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (These games are clearly notable, though I'm not a fan.)
  • Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. (Okay, not single-handedly, but she's part of the success of the Nintendo game music.)
  • Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (See list of game credits.)
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (See web search on her name for fan publications, and also magazines like GameAxis Unwired.) Pkeets (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
"Notable composition" refers to a composition which meets the notability criteria to have an article on Knowledge (XXG), the notability of the games alone is not sufficient. Please give some reliable and independent sources to prove that the other criteria you listed are fulfilled. Especially the last point, since all the references you have listed in the article either do not mention the subject at all (e.g. GameAxis Unwired) or are only trivial coverage with a passing mention (Classicals: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases). Do you have any detailed interviews or articles on her that could help expand this article with biographical information and to establish notability? Prime Blue (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think you confused Play! A Video Game Symphony with Video Games Live. As far as I am aware, Play! has not had a Metroid arrangement yet. Prime Blue (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No, sorry, no interviews or puff articles. However, I've been doing a number of composer biographies and these are quite often unavailable for low-profile composers in non-English speaking countries. Most living female composers market their compositions quite actively, but are reticent about personal information. Hamano's birth date, place of birth, city of residence and employer are all covered in the article. It's not necessary to include privacy sensitive information about her family, background, activities, etc. Is expanability one of the criteria for notability? Also, perhaps the orchestrated music isn't clear in the article? It's Legend of Zelda in Play! and Video Games both. Pkeets (talk)
P.S. I've added a link to the Video Games Live concert in Singapore. This is serious music; however, the "work for hire" aspect is somewhat disturbing. I hope all Nintendo's composers are getting their due in some way or other. Pkeets (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Expandability is the fundamental criterion for articles on people, as they must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to be notable. But seeing how no sources exist to prove the fulfillment of either of the criteria, I think this is a pretty clear case.
Regarding the concerts: Play! A Video Game Symphony had the "Ballad of the Wind Fish" in its Zelda medley. Since no composer breakdowns for Link's Awakening were released, it could be that this was either composed by Hamano or co-composed with Kazumi Totaka and Kozue Ishikawa (though saying that it contained her music is completely WP:OR). Video Games Live exclusively used arranged music originally composed by Koji Kondo in both their older and newer "segments". Then again, I shouldn't have brought this up as it does not really bear any relevance to an AfD... Prime Blue (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that expandability is a necessary criterion for notability. I do agree that attribution is a problem here--another aspect of the work-for-hire situation. However, she is credited on the games, so we have to accept that she did, at the least, collaborate on this now high-profile music. Perhaps the work-for-hire is a similar situation to providing incidental music for film soundtracks (since Stokowski a respectable avenue for composers)? Anyhow, I think we should have some other opinions on this. Pkeets (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The work-for-hire situation must be fairly common in Asia. I'm currently working on the bio of a Chinese composer that works for a film studio. Pkeets (talk) 01:37, 22 December 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Antoine Gray's secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable game. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 20 December 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 Thomas Eagleton. history is intact if anyone wants to do a merge Spartaz 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. JN466 12:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete if this was to be on Knowledge (XXG), it would be an article on the blackmail attempt on Thomas Eagleton. I notice the attempt only has one (unreferenced) mention on the Thomas Eagleton page, which is strange given the uncle/niece relationship. Just possibly, this could be merged to his biography - if sources can be found to indicate notability.--Scott Mac 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The present bio reads like a coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology.--Scott Mac 12:40, 20 December 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 (A7) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

PROD removed by creator. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this software in reliable sources, to meet our notability guidelines. Still not sure why we don't have a speedy criterion for software that doesn't assert notability. ThemFromSpace 12:21, 20 December 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 result was Non admin closure keep by the nominator. This was a bad nomination on my part.

Amarillo American Association baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable for coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 20 December 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 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Not enough third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - He is mentioned in passing, or is being quoted as chief marketing dude for planet illogica. But what is missing is significant coverage about him. Although there are a lot of sources in the article, many of them are not independent. For Example, COCO magazine's article is not about him. It is written by him. The reference to the article in the Oregonian actually leads to a blog on planet illogica. Just because it looks adequately referenced, does not mean it is. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 23 December 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. Courcelles 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Prod was challenged. Has appeared for a third tier Swedish club and an Icelandic club. Don't believe he meets notability guidelines. EchetusXe 11:19, 20 December 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. Courcelles 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism was closed as "no consensus to delete". Following the closure, I have moved the page from the incubator to the mainspace so that the community can evaluate whether the changes have addressed the concerns raised at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism and Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

From the talk page of the article:

Discussion about suitability as an article
Assessment

Article incubation assessment

  1. Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
    A. It meets the general notability guideline:
    B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
  2. Is it verifiable?
    A. It contains references to sources:
    B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. There is no original research:
  3. Is it neutral?
    A. It is a fair representation without bias:
    B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
  4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
  5. Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:
  • 1A: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources
  • 1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article
  • 2A: Yes, there are sources
  • 2B: Yes, there are inline citations
  • 2C: Sources do not support the article as a topic. Sources show usage of the term as a neologism. There are a number of statements which are not supported by sources. The article appears to be original research, and there is no evidence otherwise - indeed, the article is constructed as an argument that the term does convey a recent concept.
  • 3A/B: The article is constructed as an essay persuading the reader that the concept of "conspiracy journalism" exists and that the term is being used in the media.
    • Disagree - At no point does the article advocate for the existence of the category. It seeks to frame and identify the usage in media and academic circles. Term is clearly in use.Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • 4 Not applicable
  • 5 Fail. The article was deleted after a discussion in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor, User:Jettparmer. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the decision was to endorse the deletion, though an offer was made to move the material to a subpage via either incubation or userfication. Jettparmer elected for incubation, though the article has not attracted attention from any other editor. As Jettparmer has moved the material to his userpage - User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism - it is appropriate to take this page to WP:MfD. SilkTork * 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete and remove from Knowledge (XXG) - I participated in the MfD and was invited to add my thoughts in this AfD#2. "Conspiracy Journalism" is neologisms and there is not enough reliable source material to satisfy WP:GNG. The article violates No original research in that the article combines material from multiple web sources to reach the conclusion that Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism when the sources do not state that. The article lead states, "Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism that has elements of advocacy journalism, yellow journalism and investigative journalism." Books Ngram Viewer shows that, unlike advocacy journalism, yellow journalism, and investigative journalism mentioned in the conspiracy journalism article, the phrase 'conspiracy journalism' has had no noticeable usage through 2008. Moreover, there is no sense from the sources in the article that they are each talking about the same idea when they mention the phrase "Conspiracy Journalism". Conspiracy journalism is fast becoming the Rasputin of Knowledge (XXG). Since its March 20, 2010 deletion, the material has been moved in the past nine months from article space-->AfD--> DRV-->Article Incubator-->MfD-->User space-->article space. No significant new information has come to light since March 20, 2010 to overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD#1. As noted in the collapsed template above, the November 28, 2010 Article Incubation assessment established that the deleted article had not proven useful to write a new article at Article Incubator. Delete and remove from Knowledge (XXG). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. This has been to AfD with only one keep !vote, which was from the author, Jettparmer, who then took it to DRV, where the delete was unanimously endorsed. The material was moved to the incubator, and Jettparmer also copied the material to his userpage. I evaluated it in the incubator and found it not to be an encyclopaedic article. As there were two versions on Knowledge (XXG), I called an MfD, where there were five delete comments, and - again - only Jettparmer !voting to keep. This has taken up enough of our time and resources, so this should be the final discussion, and the title should be creation protected. This move to mainspace is against policy as the article has not significantly changed since the original AfD. I will discuss the matter with User:Cunard, as I think the more appropriate thing would be to speedy per Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. SilkTork * 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is still essentially just WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I searched Google for sources on this topic, but, suspiciously or otherwise, there are very very few.--Milowent • 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite circumstantial claims of WP:OR, this article meets WP standards as encyclopedic. The term or categorization is in use within both popular and scholarly circles. Stating that the article is simply "essentially just OR" is highly subjective and unsupported in comparison to WP standards. Development of this article is warranted and suported by the simple presence of the term under a limited Google search. Jettparmer (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR is explicit: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. That is not a particularly subjective standard. --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure how there has been any synthesis. The term / categorization is used in numerous areas both in media, academia and popular sources from the UN in Africa to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The aim of the article is to catalog the term / classification detailed in these references and arrive at a proper encyclopedic entry for the term.Jettparmer (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, and try again with actual references. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article but the references given do not support the present one. Only Ref 8 & 9 are RSs, and they discuss ordinary investigative journalism. The Gore Vidal article in the EL section does not use the term or otherwise support the article. The use of Ref. 6, though not a RS in any case, shows a misunderstanding : the reference does not say the Clinton administration committed or even encouraged conspiracy journalism, but asserts that Hilary Clinton and what they considered to be associated sources had falsely claimed that the Scaife Foundation was conducting conspiracy journalism against the administration. The p. cited from Brach do not support the use of the term The other sources are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - I would submit that sources are both WP:RS and appropriate as they adequately and correctly frame the usage and validate its definition within popular media. The sources are as much for usage as content. It is not relevant whether Farah or the Clinton administration committed the act, but rather that the issue was framed by the category. The MRC reference was intended to demonstrate that common usage of the term exists and place it in the proper context. Am I missing something here? This is not an article to prove conspiracy journalism exists, but rather that a specific and unique category of this classification does. I am surprised why the SPLC reference, number 12, was classified as unreliable, this stikes me as a solid standard to support the article.Jettparmer (talk) 20:04, 21 December 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. Courcelles 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Ghafar (Afghan mujahideen fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails even the most basic requirements for WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. First part is the interpretation of a primary sources document followed by a list of individual with the same name or similar name that might be the person that was mention in the primary source. IQinn (talk) 08:28, 20 December 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Heritage (1966 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Notability criteria for films. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Autobiographical article of person who is not notable Bkingshott (talk) 07:42, 20 December 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Some editors cannot deal with a redirecting so now its nominated for deletion. Fails WP:NSONGS; has not charted on any major chart, has not even been released, has not won or been nominated for any major awards or been covered by other notable acts. STATic message me! 07:39, 20 December 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:45, 20 December 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. Probably not an hoax but an hopelessly non-notable YouTube video character, — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable animated series lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 06:34, 20 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Tag placed for sourcing in february 2010, which was not addressed properly since then. This article has -almost- no source other than YouTube videos basically only linking to sections describing the videos that in turn amount to WP:OR. The notability of the subject is itself very border line per WP:ANYBIO. Thanks - 05:37, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List does not cover a notable topic (ie, a topic the subject of significant discussion in reliable independent sources.) The entries on the list are themselves non-notable, and a list of non-notable streets is essentially a street directory, which Knowledge (XXG) explicitly frowns on. Initial prod was removed with rationale "No reason to delete this list!" - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing a directory, which lists events or business, from a gazetteer, which lists the beginning, end, and major crossroads and towns of routes. Knowledge (XXG) incorporates elements of a gazetteer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose --- There IS no reason to delete this list! Perhaps some of the streets that already have articles can be moved to Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject U.S. Streets, but to delete a whole list of county roads is an asinine thing to do. ----DanTD (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Calling something asinine is not a very good argument. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm sorry but it is, and many below this list, starting with User:Floydian understand this. And while I've had my disagreements with them on which county roads are notable enough for an article and which ones aren't, the fact that the Volusia County has these roads under their jurisdiction is notable. Just because the existance of a list of these roads may not mean anything to the nominee, doesn't mean it's not notable. ----DanTD (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Barry Flakelar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:35, 20 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ORB (Venture Bros. episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. I doubt that the episode is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - ORB (Venture Bros. Episode) doesn't seem to me to be a likely search term, and in any event once this article is deleted it will return the episode list as the first search result if searched. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply - This already sounds more like a redirect than a delete. I agree with you on the notability of the article, but that doesn't mean the info in the existing article can't be used in the future, i.e. for a season-specific episode list, or for a Venture Brothers Wikia, or maybe just some fansite. Saving the info is just fine without saving the article. Redirecting will help you do that, deleting it won't. I've made similar recommendations for Big Time Rush episodes. ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 20 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

County Road 2002 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable county road in Florida. A Google search gives no related hits that aren't from Knowledge (XXG). The only possible claim to notability is as a "scenic route", but we'd need a source to substantiate that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 vs. Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been around for a week or so but doesn't seem to be evolving into anything other than a personal essay. The material on it is more than adequately covered on other pages including those on HTML 5 and Flash. Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that not all sources cited are equally reliable, but that is (as I see it) not the main point; the main issue to be considered here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable and could be developed into a reliably sourced article. Further, I do not think that being a blog makes a source unreliable per se; what counts is the distinction between self-published sources and sources that are published under some form of editorial control that may be assumed to uphold certain standards. Many leading technology weblogs have a professional editorial staff, and are of comparable quality as technology magazines in print. As it is, the topic of the article does not interest me, but if anyone else is inspired, here is a list of sources that (again, in my opinion) are reliable and can be used for the article:
CNET News:
CNN:
Engadget (yes, a technology blog, but generally considered reliable, with a strong editorial staff and knowledgeable authors with sound contributions; this particular article was actually cited in a scholarly article in Law Library Journal 102, no.3):
Focus.com:
Gizmodo (nominally a blog, but generally reliable and more like an e-zine; it has an editorial team, and John Herrman is a regular and knowledgeable contributor):
InformationWeek:
InfoWorld:
Knight Digital Media Center, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism:
Mashable:
The New York Times (the original source may be a technology blog, but one with an editorial team; by republishing this article it was sanctioned as reliable by the NYT):
TechCrunch:
VentureBeat (same story: technology blog with an editorial team):
 --Lambiam 20:53, 23 December 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. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Business jargon. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Feezo (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have removed/edited some parts of the article which were either unclear or restatements of information available elsewhere (such as the list of different types of IP) which I feel did not help the article. OSborncontributionatoration 17:24, 24 December 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. Spartaz 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination. Relisting per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_12#Rappelz_.28closed.29. I am neutral. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

:Spieletipps

  • online article: Kilian Meier, 2010: Rappelz: Gratis-Rollenspiel mit starken Pets und Fähigkeiten, spieletipps.de
  • printed article: is in Ausgabe 09/2008
  • company details:
gamers.at
  • online article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at,
  • print article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at, 25, page 80 ff.
  • company details:
pcaction.de
  • printed article: Alexander Wenzel, 2008: Rappelz: Revolution, PC Action 09/2008
onlinewelten.com
  • online article: Andre Bergmann, 2006: Rappelz Gratiswoche bei OnlineWelten Tag II, Onlinewelten
  • company details:
Computer Bild Spiele
  • online article: Test: Rappelz, 30.06.2009
  • online article: Rappelz: Ein abgespecktes World of Warcraft, 06.03.2009
  • online article: Rappelz: Tipps zum kostenlosen Online-Rollenspiel, 06.03.2009
  • those articles were also printed: Test: 12 kostenlose Onlinespiele, COMPUTER BILD Ausgabe 12/2009, pp. 86
  • Company: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.173.224 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
A add to the articles listed above, but now more scientific and not so much from the few point of the players, is found in the Google scholar search provided in the start. In the article Gyuhwan Oh and TaiYoung Ryu, Game Design on Item-selling Based Payment Model in Korean Online Games, DiGRA 2007, Rappelz is used on page 651, as an example for online games that provide their services free of charge. However the author made a typing error and the connection is only made if you follow up the references to number 17: "Rappelz". Available at http://www.rappelz.com/. The article over all covers quite well the business model used in Rappelz. - 194.160.173.224 (talk · contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability isn'tclearly established but there seems to be some consensus that a new more focused article might be more acceptable then the current one Spartaz 03:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:COI article by Masreliez promoting his estimation of Kalman filtering. Not generally a notable algorithm and not encyclopedic. jps (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Unnotable result by unnotable person. Given details on user page and editing history across multiple other wikipedias, probably self-written. Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • How does one know whether it's a notable result or not, without knowing its content? The article fails to say what Masreliez’s theorem says. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I did a search on Mathscinet under "anywhere" with the keyword "Masreliez". There were nine results, including four papers by the author. The paper containing the theorem has not been reviewed on Mathscinet, but is cited in 3 subsequent notes. In Zentralblatt, I found 15 results for the name with a similar search. The author's summary of the 1975 paper is reproduced in a scanned version of Zentralblatt. There are four citations which reproduce the three citations in Mathscinet, plus a second citation by the author Cipra (with Rubio) from a paper which was not reviewed on Mathscinet. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC) cses where either 1)
        • So what does the theorem actually say? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Did you not click on the link to the author's summary at Zentralblatt? "Two approaches to the non-Gaussian filtering problem are presented. The proposed filters retain the computationally attractive recursve structure of the Kalman filter and they approximate well the minimal variance filter in cases where 1) the state noise is Gaussian or its variance small in comparison to the observation noise variance or 2) the observation noise is Gaussian and the system is one step observable. In both cases the state estimate is formed as a linear prediction corrected by a nonlinear function of past and present observations. Some simulation results are presented." (4 pages, IEEE automatic control, 1975) Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am afraid this is just foul tactics in jps’ initiated battue at Masreliez associated edits. Jps takes fright at any edit that might give C. Johan Masreliez credit as a notable person also doing well received mainstream science. Please also note personal attacks here. ¨( Kurtan (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Remarkable unsupported allegations and conclusions. I am NOT Masreliez or his puppet. I am living in Stockholm, Masreliez in Seattle, USA!
Why should I not list it on the Swedish, Japanese and Spannish wikis, as I use to edit there since years, if I find it a notable idea?? Is it really neccessary to list all 144 citations to the follow up article by Masreliez & Doug Martin (1977)? /Kurtan (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Martin, the person who mentioned it in 1979, was a coauthor of another short note. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Just needs a lot of work. Melcombe (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. A problem is that no general consensus has emerged as to how much a theorem has to be cited to become notable. The GS cites for Masreliez's paper appear to be 190, which is not at all high compared to some of the figures that appear on these pages. It may not be useful to have an article on every paper with 190 cites or more. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete as not notable. There needs to be evidence of articles about rather than just mentioning this theorem. There are 11 Google Scholar hits for this linked above, as opposed to at least a thousand for "Rolle's Theorem", "Rouche's Theorem", "Lagrange's Theorem". At the same time, I'm not convinced by the argument about it building on other work. After all, Fermat's Little Theorem is a special case of Euler's Theorem is a special case of Lagrange's Theorem, and yet we quite rightly have articles on all three. Notability is the criterion here. Zarboublian (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability yes, but it is established not so much by the name of theorem, but rather by the name of its paper, which on Google Scholar gives 161 hits (and the 190 citations). This means that most scientists are not aware of a title of the theorem (1975), but well on its scientific implication. I found this notable enough for my edits on the Japanese version and would vote for “Keep” here as well. (+4 st ~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariguld (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly userfy if someone is willing to work on it. We can't allow an article on a theorem which doesn't state the theorem. It isn't even clear from the current article that the object is really a theorem or an algorithm. I have enough background to understand what the algorithm might be doing but the article clearly needs a very large amount of work. Even after a lot of work we could still argue about Knowledge (XXG) notability, but I hope that we could find a home on some wiki for a clear statement of this algorithm if (and only if) it allows someone with a basic knowledge of Kalman filtering and robust statistics to understand it. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 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. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1868 North Carolina railroad bonds scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see this as WP:NOTNEWS. given that it happened so long ago it will be harder to find sources. but the current articles sources a blog which may be unacceptable under WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Young Money 2: As The Beast Returns (Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mixtapes are usually not notable, Google shows only the WP article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Renomination, to clear up several malformed and incomplete nominations by other ed. I have no firm opinion, but I see some major problems. The earlier nom. said "not an artist", which presumably means "not sufficiently notable as an artist." What this exceptionally spammy article really needs is a check for copyvio, and then a check for usable sources. (The weird use of the present tense is a customary side effect of a Google translation from the French. At the frWP, the article was speedy deleted as non-verifiable, restored after request through OTRS, and deleted again through their AfD process.) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 20 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Small article, which most likely is impossible to develop further (unless some bigger controversy erupts out of it or it will be passed as an actual law, not as a suggestion from Wilders among other suggestions). Not really needed as a separate article since it can be fit right in to Geert Wilders article (like I said, small content), which I can do by myself if this AFD will be passed. Userpd (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can be paraphrased then to avoid copyrighting issues. Userpd (talk) 21:58, 20 December 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. Courcelles 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Article that violates WP:BLP and is extremely poorly sourced for five or so years. Couldn't find much on google except for mirror sites; a lot of content was also swiped from the subject's personal webpage and could be copyvio. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above two comments are all well and good, but can we get this BLP sourced before we press the keep button? Courcelles 01:14, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced BLP without much evidence of notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 20 December 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 AfD proposal withdrawn. Article converted to redirect to Postmodern religion. Kim Dent-Brown 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Almost identical text to that found at Postmodern Neopaganism which is arguably a better home for this material Kim Dent-Brown 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It can be merged directly without coming here, but the text does not appear identical--was this an attempt at a split? DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author responsible for the whole text of this article has just reduced it to a nine-word stub - presumably to render it non-identical to the article at Postmodern Neopaganism. I guess the article we are discussing could now be speedied as having little or no content, but I will not paste a speedy template myself. The topic of the viability of this article has been discussed at great length on the talk page and also on the Wicca talk page. All the contributing editors apart from the one responsible for starting this page were of the opinion that the topic was WP:OR and non-notable. Kim Dent-Brown 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The main editor contributing to this article is making heroic efforts to flesh it out so my comment on the "stubby" nature of this article no longer applies. However I do believe this material is largely WP:OR and is essentially an essay which is one thing Knowledge (XXG) is not. I have proposed that this page (which largely discusses Neopaganism, not Wicca), should be turned into a redirect to Postmodern Neopaganism. I have made this suggestion to the principal editor, who continues to beaver away regardless. Kim Dent-Brown 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The editor concerned is now gutting her own article at Postmodern Neopaganism (see edit summaries at page's history. I cannot think of a viable reason to do this, unless it somehow relates to the discussion here at AfD. This getting out of hand and I am taking a back seat from editing these articles or this AfD further for a while. Kim Dent-Brown 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep

1. POSTMODERN WICCA has been identified as GOOD ARTICLE BY BOTS

I have created an entirely new category for POSTMODERNISM (VITAL TOPIC) and article POSTMODERN RELIGIONN - identified as a Good Article by Bots

2. The flow for my content is

POSTMODERNISM

POSTMODERN RELIGION

POSTMODERN NEOPAGANISM - Sub-articles to include POSTMODERN WICCA, POSTMODERN DRUIDISM, Semitic Neopaganism etc etc

POSTMODERN CHRISTIANITY

POSTMODERN BUDDHISM

POSTMODERN HINDUISM

ETC ETC

3. I am attempting to create a series of connected articles, however, Repeated suggests are that the articles should be merged into WICCA - or deleted, but my articles connect to POSTMODERN THEORY so they should not be merged or redirected. I keep repeating that this content connects to POSTMODERNISM, however, the WICCA community is very upset and continues to delete, revert etc etc etc etc

4. Could perhaps someone from Postmodernism shed some light??

5. I have provided over 50 references and worked very hard researching to contribute good content to Wiki on a topic that has not been covered - postmodern religion. All religions can be interpreted from a postmodern perspective so I don't really see why it is such a problem if I write about this??

6. I am a little confused about the level of resistance here considering the content is new and the sources are credible. Some articles are short but I am working hard and if I could I have a little bit of space to develop the new content. I am better at developing new content and research or coming up with angles on topics that may not have been covered on wiki, yet users are searching for or interested in - my editing skills are sadly lacking, so this is an area that I would love to focus on in Knowledge (XXG).

7. The average user may tend to run a search for postmodern wicca etc. rather than postmodern neogpaganism - it is a more refined and specific search and the term wicca gets more hits than neopaganism so level of user interest is evident. As the majority of Neopagans are Wiccan/Witch (Google searches are 400,000 per month for Wicca) it makes sense to have a separate page. The article has only been around for a week and there are lots of references, it seems that it would be better to keep and add to the content, rather than delete the content.

8. BE OBJECTIVE - The Postmodernism - Postmodern religion - Postmodern Christianity - Postmodern Buddhism - Postmodern Neopaganism - Postmodern Wicca - Postmodern Hinduism - Links to Religion and Philosophy as major portals - also we can link to Christianity, Buddhism, Neopaganism, Hinduism etc don't waste a good opportunity.

--Kary247 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry for caps. I have poor vision, working hard and forget to change to lower case, glasses etc. I have fixed up and shortened - I will get my glasses next time--Kary247 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no, we don't title articles based on keywords or Google indexing. We base them on the best title for the subject, what it is called in the literature. We don't make a bunch of small articles if the material would be better organized into a more general article. We don't decide whether an article should be kept based on possible hits, only on notability and verifiability. Also, SHOUTING in BOLD doesn't help your arguments but rather only makes them look weak. Please don't shout, it's hard to read and annoys other editors. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - (a) It's an invalid content fork of Postmodern Neopaganism and (b) Having looked at the sources I'm unconvinced that "postmodern wicca" has a meaning distinct from "wicca that is postmodern". Random accretions of adjectives and nouns are not inherently encyclopaedic, no matter how many Google hits you get for their usage. (Arguably postmodern wicca is the only form of wicca that ever existed, but that's really neither here nor there.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the subject is at all notable, the Postmodern Neopaganism article is the correct place for it, with sections on any subcultures such as Wicca and Druidism. There will not be enough material specific to those topics to avoid the unnecessary repetition of material such as is already going on. These articles look virtually identical with minor changes in wording. I'm not convinced that this is anything more than an essay or original research topic. No need to proliferate articles until that is resolved at Postmodern Neopaganism and strong evidence is produce that there is enough material about pagan subcultures to justify additional articles. I am particularly concerned that all these articles start out with "Postmodern x can be defined", as an encyclopedia article should be about something that is defined. I'd like to see sources for the definitions, otherwise this looks like a personal synthesis. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable cartoonist. His works may be notable but he isn't. Nothing in google news archives, nothing in google books (except for 3 Knowledge (XXG)-derived spam entries). Plenty of web results, mostly from Knowledge (XXG), but I can't find anything about him. Pontificalibus (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Person who's only claim to notability is working for a notable entity WuhWuzDat 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Angola at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI. This is essentially the same content, only spread across many different country articles, which are also included in the nomination. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bhutan at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Botswana at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canada at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
China at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiwan at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czech Republic at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ethiopia at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Georgia at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guyana at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haiti at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Honduras at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indonesia at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazakhstan at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kosovo at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kyrgyzstan at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montserrat at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Myanmar at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nepal at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paraguay at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peru at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippines at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russia at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Marino at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sierra Leone at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spain at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinidad and Tobago at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Venezuela at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vietnam at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zimbabwe at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mauritius at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mexico at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brazil at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mongolia at the Big Four pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also included. O Fenian (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not just an objection to the name, it is an objection to the entire concept of there being a "grand slam" or "big four" series of pageants and presenting the results of those tournaments together in a single article regardless of what name it is. The information does exist elsewhere already, just not combined in articles that are original research. O Fenian (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per O Fenian. Beauty contest#Around the globe claims that Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth are considered the "big four pageants", but no source is provided to indicate who, exactly, considers them the big four pageants. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have examined the articles, the past AfDs, and conducted my own Google searches, and I am unable to find evidence that the terms "Grand Slam" or "Big Four" have a notable meaning in the context of beauty pageants. (Most usages seem to stem from a crusade by the creator of these articles to popularise them, or through mirroring from Knowledge (XXG) content.) I am likewise unable to find evidence of the concept of thes four pageants as a group being notable, under any name. Therefore the articles do not cover a notable topic and should all be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep all - All articles should be kept as they are, but remove any mention of "Big Four" which is the main bone of contention. I don't think anyone is arguing with the validity of the contents of the articles themselves. To delete them because the concept of "Big Four" is wrong would be too drastic. Therefore, I would rename them all "COUNTRYNAME at worldwide beauty pageants" and leave it like that.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
--Actually, following on from my comment above, probably "COUNTRYNAME at beauty pageants" would be enough, as there's no reason why the individual countries' participation, success or otherwise at a continental level (eg Miss Africa, Miss Europe etc) could not also be included on these pages.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:04, 21 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Article about an unelected politician which does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. TM 00:26, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

An article support almost wholely on primary evidence to sustain it as article with no secondary sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 20 December 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) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz_240D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

It's poorly written, unreferenced (since 2007), unneeded and confusing as there are main articles about both Mercedes-Benz W115 and Mercedes-Benz W123 series which are of good standard and they're including info about this model. This model doesn't need separate article also because it has no extraordinary features which couldn't be found in other W115 and W123 series cars.

SHAMAN

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Change to disambiguation page, explaining that the name can refer to a diesel powered version of either the W115 or W123 series, and linking to those two articles. M0ffx (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea but the trouble is that someone keeps reverting this article SHAMAN 12:54, 20 December 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This article was made by an overambitious assistant. Williamrichter (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Just who is the editor Williamrichter? This account created the article early in 2009 and has edited it many times since. Now, we have a deletion nomination from the same account saying the article was created by an "overambitious assistant". Are two people using this account, namely the subject himself and the assistant? How do we know who is editing here? Perhaps the subject is notable, perhaps now. But we need to understand what's going on here before deciding whether to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No we don't. The only pertinent question is whether reliable and independent sources exist. Waffling over the identity of the person operating the account is, in essence, avoiding that question for no good reason. It's possible to look for the existence of such sources without even caring who the accountholder is. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd like to suggest that is not entirely correct. For marginal BLPs there appears to be (from what I've seen) a community leaning to deletion when privacy may be an issue. (issues about two people using an account should be dealt with elsewhere if needed.) (haven't had a good look at article so no comment on deletion.) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Who the nominator is isn't relevant, as you can't opt out of your own article anyway. Regardless, this article shows no evidence of meeting our notability guidelines and should therefore be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:14, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ORG. A Google search shows no independent source for this company. Another name is Manoto TV. Farhikht (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 20 December 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. extransit (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

not notable. a local basketball coach and superintendent. also, his article is highly POV with few sources. also, article is an orphan with no articles linking to it. KingJohn23 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination ("a local basketball coach and superintendent") seems to have missed the point that his notability has been as a game official (referee) in multiple (12) NCAA Final Fours and that he was honored by the NCAA as official of the year. Mandsford 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep - While it is criminal that this guy was ever selected as "official of the year" by anyone (lol), he certainly is a well-known college basketball referee and is notable. Rikster2 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 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. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This organization does not seem to have attracted any significant coverage in reliable sources since the previous AfD discussion resulted in the article's deletion. matic 03:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see a few mentions in google news and a single mention in google books. Probably too little independent coverage to write about this neutrally. Currently the article is based entirely on the primary source. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 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. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I've asked Alan Liefting to elaborate a bit about the subject of his AfD nominations, but here we have just the briefest possible nomination "non-notable person". The subject is a top-level fly fisherman. I don't know if we have a notability guideline for this sport. There are lots of Google News mentions of this person but unfortunately nearly every one is behind pay walls. This is worth a more thorough discussion than implied by the brevity of the nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The sport is irrelevant. The usual criterion for all biographies applies: Do the independent and reliable sources exist, documenting this person's life and works in depth, from which a neutral and verifiable biographical article, documenting this person's life and works, can be created? Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 23:41, 20 December 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. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Abduction of Rahma el-Dennaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. children go missing all the time. all the cited sources are around the same date which just reinforces this article is just a summary of news coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 20 December 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.

↑