Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 23

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 22 December	24 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tyrone Relph

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

Unable to find sufficient enough coverage in reliable sourges to establish notability or to verify most of the content of the article. Found this that shows that he is an Irish modern rock artist who was at one point signed to a minor record label, nothing more. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. —J04n(talk page) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: unreferenced WP:BLP, with no indication of significant coverage in Google News or Google Books. Hrafn_Stalk 09:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: I independently looked and couldn't find sourcing to establish notability. I thought there might be some based on some on claims in the article, but its mostly puff.--Milowent • 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per above. Fails WP:BIO, etc. Though we need an article on the woman in the picture with him per WP:HOTTIE. Dismas| 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - Winner of the 2010 MTV independent songwriter of the year 2010. http://ema.mtv.co.uk/press/press-fantastic-sounds-winner http://www.cdcleisure.net/2.php?&band=432&venue=Spring+%26+Airbrake. Regards, SunCreator 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually he won the 2010 Swift FANtastic Sounds Competition -- this is co-sponsored by MTV Europe Music Awards, but is not part of their annual awards, and there is no indication that this is a "major music competition" per WP:NMUSIC. Hrafn_Stalk 19:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence of source says 'TYRONE RELPH WINNER OF THE MTV INDEPENDENT SONGWRITING AWARD 2010'. Are you saying that is fake? The claim is collaborated with the image File:Tyrone_relph_madrid_2010.jpg. I have asked for another opinion. Regards, SunCreator 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See 2010 MTV EMA Winners! & Nominees. Then see Swift FANtastic Sounds Competition (and also see http://ema.mtv.co.uk/press/press-fantastic-sounds-winner which you cited above). It is MTV-EMA-sponsored but not part of any MTV award. Hrafn_Stalk 11:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The winners and nominations list are incomplete. Using a sponsors name on an award is common practice in some sports perhaps it occurred here also. Regards, SunCreator 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Striking my keep per J04n's opinion below. Regards, SunCreator 00:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment, considering the late date that new sources have been added to this article and the ongoing debate as to what award the subject has actually won, I suggest that this discussion be relisted. As the nominator, I would like a chance to look over the sources. Thank you J04n(talk page) 12:50, 23 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 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for relisting, when I discovered that SunCreator had found sources there was only about 90 minutes left before the discussion was eligible for closure and I wanted to give the sources consideration. Had I found the sources before nominating, I probably would not have nominated but now that it's here I'm not comfortable reversing my position unless I'm convinced that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately I'm not convinced. He has clearly won an award, the sources give conflicting reports as to what that award is. After looking at the cdcleisure site it is clear that its purpose is to promote acts that are scheduled to play at its venues, so I'm not going to consider it to be reliable or independent of the subject. That leaves the subject as the winner of the 'Swift FANtastic Sounds Competition' and kudos to him, unfortunately this has received coverage nowhere except by its sponsors, I don't consider it to be a 'major award'. Should his career continue to advance the article can certainly be recreated but until he receives more widespread coverage the article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and should be deleted. J04n(talk page) 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:50, 29 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. Alexf 19:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List of plants of Collin County, Texas

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

So, will we have a list of every plant and/or every animal and/or every mineral in every single county in the United States? I think even listing by state is too fine a granularity. But what makes all of these plants different from the next county over, especially in a state like Texas where there are over 200 counties? Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine granularity is not listed as a valid reason for deletion in Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy. A comprehensive list of flora or fauna for an area is useful for anyone studying nature in that area. Other lists for Texas have been useful to me. User:Gaberlunzi —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. While a list of flora unique to a region might be encyclopedic and worthy of mention in the county's (or other appropriate subdivision's) article and/or the plant's article, a blanket article containing merely a listing of all flora present in a region seems trivial and unencyclopedic, especially when attributable to only one or two sources, one of which is also identified as a checklist and the other barely seems to add any valuable commentary to the article other than a few brief notes for a few such plants. Likewise, what distinguishes the flora in Collin County from that in, say, the other counties in the DFW area? In response to ine granularity is not listed as a valid reason for deletion, the deletion policy does suggest "ny other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" as being a valid reason for deletion. At the moment, this article is merely a list with no encyclopedic content, and appears to be a list for the sake of having a list that may be more appropriate on a local plant enthusiast's personal site. The argument that someone might find this "useful" similarly doesn't carry much weight. --Kinu /_c 02:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SALAT for being too specific. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, being extremely specific beyond reason is a valid reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - basically original research for it is based on a single primary source. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. (1) The reasons already given; (2) While a county is de facto notable, its flora may not be, especially if it is indistinguishable from adjacent counties--the article has no assertion of notability; (3) An article like this will likely be a magnet for additions by editors who know of additional species, but those additions are unlikely to be referenced and will be mistakenly attributed to the original reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete for reasons specified above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. Alexf 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alan Stewart Carl

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

An author's biography written by a cluster of users with no other contributions. Some references imply notability (hence the speedy decline) but seems weak. Step hen 23:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - a mass of fluff and nonsense adding up to a non-notable. Some folks need to read WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete no notability. "References" do not actually discuss the subject. -Drdisque (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per OrangeMike. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. Alexf 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Hongla

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:Athlete. Oleola (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. — GorillaWarfare 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yannick Ossok

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:Athlete. Oleola (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nom Spiderone 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Webjet

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

Throughout most of its existence this article has been a rather blatant advertisement, with all substantive content the work of two WP:SPAs. Recently someone added a badly sourced section on complaints, prompting a complaint to OTRS. The sources for the article are the company's website and... oh, that is the only source. I've now pruned it down form a blatant advertisement to a directory entry. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Being a listed company, I expected to find references (per WP:LISTED) and there are a host of them on Google news. This is one of many. St Anselm (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep plenty of gnews hits indicates this is a notable company. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 22:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep being a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange is enough. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I agree that it is a blatant advertisement.JusticeSonic (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — JusticeSonic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per WP:LISTED. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Berggoetz

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

Non-notable filmmaker with one non-notable film to his credit. Looks like an autobiography, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, 08:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:CREATIVE (sole award is the "obsolete" CableACE Award). Hrafn_Stalk 11:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: My bad. The current "Golden Ace Awards" bestowed by the Las Vegas International Film Festival are not the same as the former CableACE Awards... totally different entities. I'll still stick with a TOOSOON, as that is one award, and its notability has not been determined. Schmidt, 22:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretive science

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

Violation of WP:NOR's WP:SYNTH Policy, the entire point is to propose the Scientist are incapable of understanding all the information (I.E. God's plan) and that means they are ignoring Alternative explanations.(IE divine creation.) Only two sources utilize the term "Interpretive science" and only then as a Synonymous for Qualtative research. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable subject matter with no dedicated research or publications. Foot-in-the-door POV fork. The concepts presented are already covered at social constructionism, normative and qualitative research. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep It strikes me that this topic could be greatly expanded on. There are issues, but that is no reason to delete it out of hand. I am unaware of what universe these editors are getting the idea that this is somehow a Creationist Uber Plot to Take Over the World. Some of the sources may violate SYNTH, but none are from fringe sources. I would suggest that they peruse WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Novus Orator 02:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete this article which attempts to justify the methods of pseudoscience. Sources do not justify article as noted by Binksternet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
Delete per nom & Binksternet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Qualitative research -- WP:Synthesis-ridden WP:CFORK. Hrafn_Stalk 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Snowded 06:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are plenty of sources which cover this topic. Note that when reviewing the sources, one should also allow for the alternative title of interpretive research. The topic is therefore notable. The claim of synthesis seems very weak as there is little evidence of the supposed synthetic proposition. This and other issues are best address by ordinary editing not deleteion per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Term used in sufficient books as to warrant an article. Disputes over exact content belong on the article talk page, not here. Weber should be sufficient, to say the least. Many other uses of the term are found , etc. It is quite misleading to claim that "only two sources use the term" for sure. used as a term by psychology journals. term published by major RS publishers. Therefore the term is widely used and notable. Again - AfD is not the place for content disputes. Collect (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited Weber passage describes sociology as an "interpretative science", rather than stating that there is an independent topic of that name. Nor do any of the other citations appear to define "interpretative science" as an independent topic (e.g. from Quantitative research). Hrafn_Stalk 11:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

With well over eight hundred uses of the term on Google Scholar (not Google or Googlebooks), and with many appearing to be using the term in a consistent manner, your argument applies, at best, to a content dispute and not a notability issue. And again, the claim that "only two sources" use the term is clearly erroneous. Collect (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) Google Scholar also has approx 1.6 million hits on "general theory" -- and with that many, I'd be surprised if many weren't "appearing to be using the term in a consistent manner" by simple random probability. That does not however mean that we should have an article (rather than a mere disambiguation page) on that topic. (ii) You have not demonstrated that "interpretative science" is a topic independent of qualitative research (with the former often used as though it is a synonym for the latter), which has 800,000 Google Scholar hits, and already has a more extensive article lacking WP:SYNTH concerns. Hrafn_Stalk 13:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Interpretive theory" is a lot more specific to this article than "general theory" is to any article at all. The usage in psychology, moreover, is quite sufficient indeed to meet notability requirements. AfD is a poor place to have content disputes settled. Your issues are properly settled on the article talk page, and not here. Collect (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An AfD is a perfectly appropriate venue to discuss content F-O-R-K-I-N-G, particularly where the "contents" of one side of the fork are highly problematical -- so kindly cease and desist your argumentum ad nauseum about taking this to article talk. Hrafn_Stalk 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

actually Knowledge (XXG):MADEUPINONEDAY would be better applicable, since this term is real term used in as a synonym to qualitative research but the article content itself is a totally new use of the term thus I nominated it for deletion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And per WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." SnottyWong 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete- looks to me to be a classic case of WP:SYNTH- the "definitions" section with all those quotes selectively mined and lined up to produce the argument is a telltale sign. Many of the sources seem unrelated to the subject and serve only to introduce what looks to be a Creationist POV. Combine that with the total failure of the article to explain just what "interpretive science" actually is and how it works, and it becomes clear that this is not a real article at all and probably can never be one. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed using a 400 year old Issac Newton book as a source in any contemporary science article is a redflag The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep From what I see on Google books and Google Scholar results, this is easily verified as a real thing. If the subject is notable, then the article should be kept. If you have a problem with the current content of the article, discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 05:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete or change to redirect to qualitative research. The term in sociology is standard and widespread and is covered in qualitative research. Its use in the physical or biological sciences is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and unsupported by any WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
What a mess of synthesis. Perhaps for the second time in almost four years, I say delete and start over, or userfy. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Obvious content fork, obvious synth issues, obvious non-notable neologism which is not being widely used by anyone. Some editors above are claiming lots of google hits on "interpretive science" or "interpretive research", but these google hits do not prove that the science community uses this term with any particular meaning in mind. It is merely a noun and an adjective put together to describe something else, not a widely recognized scientific methodology. Redirect to one of the abovementioned forks may be appropriate. SnottyWong 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR etc, etc, if not outright WP:CB. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to qualitative research or social constructionism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - per nom, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HairyWombat 18:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Although it is very difficult to discern the meaning from many of the jargon-heavy Google Scholar references, I believe that neither "interpretative science" nor "interpretive science" have a consistent meaning. The words are used in many different contexts with approximately (or quite often not) their dictionary meanings. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not enough independent sources to show this is anything more than a WP:NEO or misused phrase. Google hits are not a valid measure of a subject's notability. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. WAYNESLAM 21:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Orange Grove Boulevard (Pasadena)

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

A non-notable street located in Pasadena, California. Apparently, the point of the article was to show how it is a residential district for the wealthy, but this seems to be original research as I can't find any source saying so. No evidence of this being an important road in Pasadena either; about the same as the countless other streets in the area. In any case it fails WP:N. -Grayshi /_contribs 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge into new list entitled List of streets in Pasadena, California. Looking at Category:Transportation in Pasadena, California, there appears to be several other unimportant streets that can easily be covered in a list format. Dough 48 72 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep the references look good to me, and there are a number of historical homes on that street. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Historic Pasadena street that's actually a tourist attraction in this world famous city with numerous mansions and unique architecture. And from this Los Angeles Times piece, it was even considered historic in 1889.--Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated above by Oakshade and Richard. Orange grove is also televised and seen by the world every New year's Eve, as the gathering and starting place for the world famous Rose Parade.DocOfSoc (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. No doubt the street is notable, indeed famous. Differences as to the specific wording of the lede (or other content) are for discussion at the article, not at AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. Alexf 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Silent Assassin (film)

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

This film does not seem to be notable. Furthermore, the director in the article is the same as the username of the user who created it. Logan _Talk 19:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete: As noted, the author of the aritcle is also the writer and director of this "short film". It blatantly fails WP:NOTFILM and the only source available is a facebook page that reads, "The Silent Assassin is a short film made in Swindon. It is written and directed by Alex Secker and stars Doug Kirby as The Man. The film is designed to show talent in Swindon and enter into national film festivals and competitions." —Mike Allen 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete While the film seems to exist, it has no coverage and fails WP:NF in as many ways as can be considered. Schmidt, 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Stars Shine (film). Spartaz 07:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Es leuchten die Sterne

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

This article appears, on the face of it, to be complete nonsense. Well, maybe it's not, but the only source is a YouTube upload - IMDB lists this title as a completely innocuous musical. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ (Redirect per comment below) This one is nonsense. The IMDB listing for a same-named 1938 propaganda film by Hans H. Zerlett actually looks like it could be a reasonable article on a sourcable pre-WW2 German film... but as described here, THIS one is nonsense sourcable only to facebook, blogs, and a youtube video that has been removed when the account was terminated, making me belive possible hoax. No prejudice toward recreation of an article on the actual 1938 film. Schmidt, 04:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to be on the 1938 film. The article creator appears to have been misled by the YouTube video, which may have been an extract from the entire work; even if it was a hoax, there is a film of this name that involved several notable people and is frequently mentioned as an example of Nazi entertainment, so sources can be found. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, as a re-write will serve just fine, I was inspired by my own comment to do just that. User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Stars Shine (film) is being worked on, even now. When finished, I will be glad to come back, overwrite the current mess with my newer version, and change my !vote to a keep. Schmidt, 07:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, I think I'll stick with a delete, specially as this current version remained pretty much in its same sorry and unsourced state since 2006. Seriously. It lasted THAT long. Go figure. I think it perhaps best to continue my work on my new article... one that is quite different from the one at this AFD... a new article with different content... only having the same name... so I can then reward my own work with a DYK. Then I can come back and suggest a redirect from old to new. Schmidt, 08:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment New article The Stars Shine has now been written about the actual musical film under its May 1938 United States release title, and is suitable as a redirect target. Schmidt, 21:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I applaud MichaelQSchmidt for creating an accurate article on this film, and am rendering what assistance I can. But I still advocate keeping and completely changing Es leuchten die Sterne . . . to a redirect. I don't believe it would be right to efface the history of the existing article as would happen if it were deleted. And the new article needs a redirect from its original title anyway. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Centrium, Woking

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

Non - notable building. Contested PROD NtheP (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —NtheP (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. It's a block of flats, not particularly different from any other similarly modern urban development. It has a vaguely interesting shape, my kids call it the ship, but it's not notable for this--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep PLEASE CAN YOU STOP THIS MR PAINTEDONE YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY IAM PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS AND YOU BASICLY WANT TO DELETE ALL MY ARRITICLES IAM GOING TO START DELETING YOURS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As with the other article, it was not me who has proposed this for deletion. In fact, as I stated on the talk page of the article, I deliberatelty didn't propose it precisely because I didn't want to appear to be mounting a vendetta against you. Instead I actually added some refs and formatting to the article to try and help you improve it, even though I didn't think it was suitably notable, and left it for other editors to judge. As you can see, someone else did put it forward, and now it is in AfD I have stated my view. If you think any of the articles I have contributed to have issues requiring deletion, please feel free to propose them and I will be happy to discuss them in light of wikipedia policies at AfD--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note The contents of this page, along with that of New central, which is also being considered for deletion, have been cut and pasted into a new article, Barratt Developments in Woking. All three articles were created by the same user. If both these article end up being deleted, I can't see how this new one could be notable either, and it could be seen as an attempt to avoid deletion. But in light of the comments above I'm not going to propose the new page, I'll let others assess it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete -- The content has been merged to Barratt Developments in Woking ~~(sic)~~. I have tidied that article a little, but I am also not sure that the buildings are important enough to need a separate joint article. If we do keep that at all, it should be Tall buildings in Woking, not limited to one developer (which would probably fail WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article 'tallest buildings in Woking' has just been deleted at AfD, I can't see that flying. Frankly this entire topic of buildings in Woking is pretty much inherantly non-notable, and what few building related facts might be of interest can be more than adequately handled by a couple of lines in the main Woking article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Please don't create any more of these articles. -- role 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete It's a block of flats. I am glad to hear there is (or will be again) a box for peregrines, but that doesn't confer notability. Please spend a little time (no, longer than that...) looking at articles about other developments before creating any more. Not every building is notable, and unless you can show that it has some special feature that we don't know about yet, it'll have to go. Articles come to AfD it it's not clear-cut and obvious that they should be deleted, and they come here for discussion. You're doing quite a good job creating these articles - it's just that you are picking subjects that are not really encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Similar reasons as above. If every apartment building had an article we'd be swimming in them. It is of purely local interest, and architecturally insignificant. Wexcan Talk 19:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Anya Sweilam

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

Web search on the name of the subject produces about 20 unique hits, none of which are sufficient to reference this article. Notability of the subject of the article is dubious at best. Safiel (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - for a mannequin, this person seems particularly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, even if sources are added this young lady does not meet any notability requirements. Note that the article started out as this. --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note Room-mate-gate aside, if this person really was the "face of Gap Kids," and appeared in a speaking role in the film Moon then she probably is notable. The problem is finding sources. (which I can't). Find a good source or two to link to and this will probably avoid deletion. Just copy and paste the URL(s) and we can take a look. David Able (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- response - yeah, well if is a pretty big word here; looks pretty dubious to me (and most people with speaking roles do not thus become notable). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Being an extra on a film is as non-notable as it gets as an actor, and as a model her career (if you could even call it that) hasn't even garnered her a Fashion Model Directory profile. Mbinebri 04:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete No notability, whether as an actress or model. Safiel (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Does not appear notable (WP:BIO), cannot find appropriate reliable sources Chzz ► 08:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability: A Google search of the entire Internet yields only 17 hits, none of which look like secondary reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bo (dog)

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

Dog with a famous owner. Notability is not inherited. Although well sourced, the only thing that makes him notable, is his owner. MikeNicho231 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Laughable. To say his owner is famous is snarky. First Dogs have a long lineage of being part of American pop Culture, since at least Fala. This is an extremely well sourced article about a dog that generates headlines -- notice plural. Nomination admits notability of the dog. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep The subject has massive coverage in reliable sources which shows notability. Chester Markel (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep More than sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG; see article's References. I am tempted to minnow-slap because no one's arguing for notability thru inheritance. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Per Bearian. Nomination acknowledges that the article is well-sourced, no valid basis is articulated for deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - A classic example of the misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. It's intended for topics that have had no significant coverage from reliable sources and not notable, not because the topic became notable due to being related to an already notable person. If someone is notable, it doesn't matter how they become notable, it's that they are notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep An outrageous and disruptive nom! This is clearly notable and has nothing to do with inherited notability. In addition, the page is very well sourced. It's not yet GA starndards, but this ones close. I agree with Bearian that the nom even admits notability. Outback the koala (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally this article was nominated for AfD and Kept on 12 December, just 2 weeks ago! WP:SNOW this and close admin. Outback the koala (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep Has nothing to do with inherited notability. Miyagawa (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is not inherited... Which is irrelevant since the dog has itself received enough coverage to be independently notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Bo has received a lot of media coverage. The article is also well put together. -— AMK152 01:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep (snow) - Bo Knows Bo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep The dog's owner is famous but the references surround Bo not Barack, JFK Jr mya only have been famous because of his father, but the reason why he got press coverage has nothing to do with his notability here. Similarly it doesn't matter why Bo is notable, he has gotten press coverage, and that's the litmus test for a wikipedia article. It is therefore not just his relation to Obama that makes him notable but his actual notability notwithstanding the underlying reasons.Thisbites (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Zxz

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

Looks like slightly more than A7, but not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Sources aren't of the highest quality, refs include MySpace and similar. — Timneu22 · talk 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete It feels like it was written by the person themselves. No notable unrelated news articles about this subject. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:NMUSIC. Hrafn_Stalk 11:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Special When Lit

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

Unreleased film. No sources or indication of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep... Now that I have addressed issues, turning this poorly written article into THIS... a lot more encyclopedic and far better sourced. With respects to the nominator, this IS a released film which has won (minor) awards and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, 07:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep decent news coverage, wide festival acceptance. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. — GorillaWarfare 18:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gb-gram

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

Unremarkable product. No sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Article is unreferenced product description. I couldn't find any sources in Google News archives or Google Books that weren't technical manuals or press releases. Steven Walling 08:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: unverified/unreferenced advertisement. bahamut0013_deeds 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, almost speedyable under A3, isn't it? "This is X which is Y" and no further content, non-notable product. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Digital token

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

Appears to be complete original research, with no sources provided. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete very unclear original research. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 23:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It seems to be about DigiCash but it's hard to tell. (It's almost patent nonsense but not quite). Probably not worth merging into DigiCash without references or clarity about the context. --Pnm (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gran Turismo 5- Car List

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

Pointless game-guidish content. The Junk Police (reports|works) 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - an indiscriminate list. Yes, it's borderline maintainable, and yes, if it were going to be added it would need to be spun out. But with over 1,000 cars and constant additions of DLC vehicles in the future this just becomes too much. And odds are this would never become a noteworthy article as I doubt anyone with care for Knowledge (XXG)'s policies can/would maintain it. There's also List of Gran Turismo courses, however this article presents the information for the series, and is exhuastively long. --Teancum (talk)

The result was merge to The Pillows discography. Spartaz 05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rush (The Pillows song)

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

Song with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - not to be rude, but I'm genuinely surprised this article has existed for over 4 years. The article provides no information whatsoever other than a song existed. Zero notability. A stub with no indication of expansion. ~ ~ : ~ 03:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to main band article. Insufficient sourcing/notability to justify self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge to The Pillows discography, which has already been suggested for a few of their other singles articles. (See for example Ride on Shooting Star). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was userfy. Moved to User:Americasroof/List of renewable energy manufacturers Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

List of renewable energy manufacturers

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

Article had been prodded but I removed it because talk page discussion indicates deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale by E8 (talk · contribs) cited WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR. For my part this is a link farm and is borderline A3 (as an article that only contains links elsewhere). I would see nothing wrong with this list if it contained mostly internal links, but if you exclude the section headings the overwhelming majority of entries in this list are external links. —KuyaBriBri 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(Author) I was hoping to get some help with the article. This rush to delete before something can emerge is premature. Insofar as there are external links, that seems valid. Creating separate articles for every one of 150-200 solar startup plays seems unnecessary, but a brief description of the tech for each would be good. Anthony717 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep – This notable information was prodded and then thrown up for afd one day after work began on it – all in violation of WP:Before. Is the information notable? Yes. Can the article be saved with editing? Yes. The rationale for deletion based WP:Directory is not met. The topic is clearly defined as manufacturers of the categories. The rationale for WP:SALAT is also not met since it clearly defines its boundaries. All that said, the article is definitely overly broad. It would be much better and probably would not have triggered the deletion reaction if it had been broken up in smaller more focused articles on what areas where it was fully developed (e.g., wind, solar, wave). I am willing to work with the original author to implement a more focused bite sized approach for a well researched article. I appreciate the argument that it is a link farm however it should be noted that since this is a new industry these companies tend to be small start ups (I wandered in while backlinking an article I started on a one of the companies). Therefore I am asking that the nominator withdraw the afd while this is implemented. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Knowledge (XXG) is not the Yellow Pages, and an article should not be a business directory. There might be a reason for this article if it includes companies with Knowledge (XXG) articles and which have sufficient refs cited to support an article. it should not be a list of every flash in the pan idea that someone issued a press release about, as a means of seeking to make them notable or to promote startups to potential customers. Renewable industry is demonstrably NOT a "new industry" since storage batteries, water wheels and turbines, and windmills were widely used in the 19th century, and photovoltaic panels were widely used in the 1970's and earlier. Any historic and defunct company should also be eligible if it has an article or has the refs to support an article. Edison (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Edison (talk · contribs) said pretty much what I was going to say. That being said, I would be willing to userfy this article for you guys to work on until it becomes a more suitable list article. —KuyaBriBri 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would be o.k. with you putting it in either my name or Anthony717. Just let me know where. I guess I should be careful what I ask for ;-) Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Not needed as we already have List of wind turbine manufacturers, List of photovoltaics companies, and List of concentrating solar thermal power companies. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete The article looks like a link farm. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete Terribly off the mark with regards to our external links guidelines as well as our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory, so much so that editing it to comply with policy would require a total rewrite. As a linkfarm, this article is unsalvageable. Them From Space 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. If this ends up being kept then the title needs to be changed, as it is physically impossible to manufacture energy. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:EL. Beagel (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete massive linkfarm, the entire article would have to be completely rewritten, and even then might simply be served better as a series of lists by industry (as we already have.) OSborn_{contributionatoration} 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Eisenberg Sasso

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

Sasso's only claim to notability is that she is the first woman Rabbi ordained by the Reconstructionist branch of Judaism. Not that she is the first woman rabbi, but the first of this particular branch. While this may or may not be notable, it is not borne out by any sources. The only fact in this article that can actually be verified by sources is that Sasso is currently a rabbi at a particular congregation in Indianapolis. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete She does not meet the qualifications for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contacteeperson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso is a notable children’s books author: She wrotes 18 books (see video Bilingual (French and English) Female Rabbi, author of Childrens'Books:Many Jewish childrens in Canada read these books. In the United States,influence of Einsnberg Sasso's Books at the Jewish childrens is can be limited in reformist and Reconstructionist ??? Also She soon became identified as one of the voices of feminist Judaism.--Geneviève (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Sasso's status as the first female Reconstructionist rabbi is readily confirmed; she was also later president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association And yes, this was a very big deal in Judaism in 1974. Sasso is also listed on The Forward's 2010 list of most influential female rabbis. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep Being the first female Reconstructionist rabbi establishes Sasso's notability. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep. Her being the first female rabbi to be ordained by the Reconstructionist movement combined with about a dozen published books, four awards for specific books and one general book award should be plenty material for notability... -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. She's my rabbi, mind you, and she is very notable. Just check out the sources.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If a WP:RS can be found verifying that she was the first female rabbi to be ordained by the Reconstructionist movement than the article is a strong keep to my mind. Right now the article does not have a source for this. Joe407 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) has provided the reliable sources needed to verify notability, although I dispute Genevieve's claim that Sasso is notable as a children's book author. An author is not notable merely for being prolific. Reliable sources are still needed for this claim. (Youtube is not a reliable source.) WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Shalom, I understands the opinion of WikiDan61 for YouTube but this opinion is not valid for the video Female Rabbi, author of Childrens'Books: Because this video was realized by Sonia Sarah Lipsyc director of Aleph CSUQ , and Abigail Hirsch a Film Producer. They have been conducting 3 interviews-Video with Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso: Reference in Jewish Women's Archives. My reference is a reliable source. I believe that these two persons, Sonia Sarah Lipsyc and Abigail Hirsch are 2 Credible serieus persons in Jewish community of montreal. They made a serious videos with Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. Thank, --Geneviève (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Notability confirmed by the numerous citations. ~~I'll remove the tag based on~~ Also, WP:SNOW. Thank you, Genevieve, for letting us know about this historically important person. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. — GorillaWarfare 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edward Fulton Denison

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

Originally tagged for {{db-a7}} by Vrenator (talk · contribs), but article claims the subject was "one of the founders of growth accounting", which is an assertion of significance and thus makes this article ineligible for A7. However, I don't see this as being notable. Also a potential close paraphrasing issue from the article's only reference which leans my !vote towards delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added some information from a Chinese document.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wikis are not reliable sources. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Then I think the PDF may be a more reliable one. And his main works can also be Googled. I find some results from Amazon.com.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. GS cites are 1261, 811, 560, 474.... h index= 12. Looks like a pass at WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
Strong keep. In addition to the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 noted by Xxanthippe, he may also pass #C3 as a distinguished fellow of the American Economic Association. But even more decisively, he has an NYT obituary crediting him as the inventor of the gross national product. That should settle the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep, per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spartaz 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nespak

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

Notability not established as per wikipedia guidelines, author requested to provide secondary source reference to establish notability, primary reference is not enough Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Major English newspapers in Pakistan such as DAWN, Daily Times and PakTribune have published dozens of articles about NESPAK going back decades. The solution is to improve the article by regular editing, rather than to delete an article about a notable organization. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Nominator appears to be single purpose account connected to deleted article Zishan Engineers. Nominator, please disclose any possible conflict of interest.Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - per Cullen328. Notable organisation. Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

William Banks-Blaney

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

A curious mix of tabloid tattle and vanispamcruftisement. Most of the sources are namechecks and not about the subject, with the one equivalent of a WP:TABLOID piece in the Telegraph (whose interpretation the subject apparently disputes). This article either needs a Heyman standard rewrite or nuking from orbit. We have an OTRS ticket as well, obviously. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, coverage appears to be largely a BLP1E regarding his alleged involvement in a sex scandal. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge (if there are any new quality sources and valuable text) to Gregory Barker which already discusses the incident and press attention. Fæ (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I think this is a classic case for deletion under the BLP policy -- the notability is only the involvement in a scandal where the other party was actually notable . DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Syed Mesam Ali Zaidi

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

Fails notability criteria for sportspeople, a he is amateur and didn't compete at the highest amateur level of the sport. Armbrust _Contribs 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. People can fail WP:ATHLETE and still be notable (most prominent politians never played professional sports, for example), but they have to pass the general notability guideline or qualify some other way, and there's no evidence that this guy passes any type of notability standard. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE. Hrafn_Stalk 03:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex Galchenyuk

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

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject acheives notability. I do acknowledge his being the first pick overall in the OHL, however that is not notable as many people picked in that position have never amounted to anything. WP:CRYSTAL. Since it was a disputed prod claiming it that the player won a major award. The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award, not every award given by a league is major. The major awards are MVP, Top Defence, Top Goalie, First All-Star team. (generic names to apply to any league). An award given to someone drafted first is none of those things DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable junior player. Reso lute 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable amateur player. Jack Ferguson cannot be considered a major award. Grsz 11 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Has not yet met the standards set by WP:NHOCKEY. Being the first player drafted in a junior league does not establish notability. Receiving an award for being the top drafted player in that same junior league is not "preeminent honors" as based in #4 of the NHOCKEY inclusion criteria. Can be recreated or restored when notability is established. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep: Explicitly passes criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY as it is now written. This player went 1st overall in the OHL selection draft, and he has achieved preeminent honours by being awarded the Jack Ferguson Award, which is a major award given by the Major Junior OHL. Dolovis (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award. It's more of a gift to go along with being selected first overall. Non-notable player that will likely be notable in the future; just not yet. – Nurmsook! 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. — GorillaWarfare 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine

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

This seems to be a strange, undue coatrack article for a complaint, filed in multiple venues, that does not appear to rise to the level of notability requiring a separate article. (Although not necessarily relevant, it appears that all of the complaints were refused or dismissed.) The main Maclean's article seems to be able to cover the "controversy" sufficiently in a paragraph, making this article redundant, at best. jæs (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. While the article is over-long it is well referenced to multiple WP:RS - the fact that they have noted it establishes notability for me! Article doesn't read as a coatrack - seems to give reasonable balance to both sides and does not stray from main topic. Expands on material available at Maclean's. Kim Dent-Brown 11:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Adequately supported by many reliable sources, thus presumed to be notable. The article does not recapitulate mundane news coverage in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, but presents a serious issue, occurring over multiple years. Chester Markel (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - just the sort of stuff that ends up at WP:ODD. Here again is an article that is extremely well-sourced, if downright weird, but is also obviously notable. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep As demonstarted in the article, this case was a major issue across Canada regarding Freedom of Speech and Canada's Human Rights Commissions. It is certainly notable enough to justify it having its own article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed Scrabble

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

Multiple issues. No sourcing, no references, cannot find in Google anything that would corroborate the details. Appears to be purely original research.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Cannot find any reliable source that verifies the rules. Feezo (Talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: appears to be an entirely WP:OR WP:GAMEGUIDE. Hrafn_Stalk 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Monosuit

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

Once again, I sit on the fence. Another editor prodded this with the reason being that the article was unsourced, and while that isn't a valid reason for deletion, I {{prod-2}}'d it anyway but for a different reason: although I can find pictures and mentions about the monosuit, nowhere is it explained what a monosuit actually is. (The prod was contested by the article creator.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, i too can't find right article what the monosuit is , but all can see right pictures for that. so, from the picture, i have narrated it. I think, we should make an article related from pictures. There is no sense of copying articles from internet and adding it as our own article, the real contribution is that to take actual contents which are not easily accessible by people.So, Erpet, kindly help to resolve this matter, without any remedy pleae don't simply try to delete or block articles. Thanks--Alpen129 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - This article amounts to nothing more than a definition of a word. It has no sources, let alone reliable ones. I can't find anything to show that this is a word in common usage, Ghits seem to show it is a term used by some surfing outfitters, and thats about it. The term is not listed at Oxford online. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and based on the above I would not even want to see it transwikied as a dicdef. Pol430 talk to me 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete The author has provided no sources. I looked and cannot find any, other than possible trademarked products; nothing consistent with article definition. Even a definition, if found, is not sufficient, but this doesn't even meet that hurdle.--SPhilbrick T 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep? Certainly this type of suit exists. I have seen them worn by, for instance, construction workers and farmers to keep warm while working outdoors. An article is possible if some source could be found that discusses the history of them in some way. There doesn't seem to be much connection to infant "Onesies" however, despite what the article claims. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can you find any such sources? If not then how do you intend to address the issue of the article's content being unverifiable due to a lack of reliable sources? Pol430 talk to me 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Construction workers and farmers wear overalls, coveralls, and boiler suits (amongst many others) and those are what those things are actually called. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: WP:DICTDEF, with a scattered set of examples. Hrafn_Stalk 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cabales Serrada Eskrima

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

A poor article with insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete I found no independent references that show this is a notable martial art. Jakejr (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge salient content into Eskrima. Janggeom (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete no coverage in gnews . LibStar (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I found nothing in independent sources to show this style is notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dean, Smith & Grace

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dean, Smith & Grace

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

The article had no substance. The body of the article has just two sentences. The second sentence refers entirely to an existing company and points to its website. There are just three referenced sources, one of which is a first-class secondary source, one of which points to a short, on-line, anecdotal article; and the other points to a page that largely advertises the new owners’ services. There are no other extant secondary sources, and there are very few readily available primary sources. It is unlikely, therefore, that the article can be made meaningful. This situation suggests that any expansion of the article would be largely anecdotal. Weiterbewegung (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep It's a stub article but not spammy in style. There is enough substance to identify the subject, which is a long established and still operating company, albeit in the non-glamorous field of machine tools. This nomination is by the creator and main editor of the article, and assorted problems have been successfully dealt with by the creator. I say leave it up and running and if the creator has no more to add, others will. (I know little about lathes, but supplied the creator with a bit of info. If I could find it, others will find more.) I would thank Weiterbewegung for putting up this article about a company that has resisted any temptation to go trendy and become Lathes'R'Us or something similar. Come on, all you who know your CNCs from your turrets - here's your Christmas challenge... Peridon (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep As when I declined the speedy, there is no spam or even vaguely promotional material. Just having a company as the subject of an article does not qualify as spam/promotional material. I agree with Peridon that there is chance of expansion, and I wonder if any experts could be recruited from WikiProjects. I'll have a nose around and see who I can track down... Acather96 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The article seems neutral in style, and establishes slight but sufficient historical significance to get to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No matter how well it doesn't fail the CSD criteria (which seems to be the focus of most of the above comments) it doesn't also seem to satisfy any of the notability criteria. I might add that the notability criteria finding is an affirmative burden... not one for the nominator here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. While this article is never going to graduate to WP:FA it is adequately sourced, non-promotional and a net loss if it were deleted. Kim Dent-Brown 12:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now the picture has been deleted, it looks even more stupid than before. Do you still want to keep it? None of you will ever be able to add to it.Weiterbewegung (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes you so confident that nobody will be able to expand this? Have you checked all of these 532 books to make sure that there's nothing in them that could be used in our article? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Help yourself.Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I like a challenge. I have added several good references to the article, including one from an American author who describes this firm as the "Rolls Royce of lathes" and also a reference to Herbert Smith, the aircraft designer who was responsible for designs such as the Sopwith Pup, Triplane, Camel, and Snipe and who worked for the firm in the years before the First World War. Still not WP:FA of course, but surely a Keep now? Kim Dent-Brown 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

'Keep Something funny going on here. It would appear that Weiterbewegung is a new editor whose first experiences have unfortunately been rather WP:BITEY and so they're now off on a suicide run to take down any content that they've previously created. Whilst their unhappiness with the usual WP user experience is understandable, this sort of reaction weakens the entire project and must never be seen as acceptable.

As to the deletion request here, then it's a duff nomination on quite the wrong grounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is someone getting a bit personal? 'off on a suicide run' so lets all just oppose anything and everything proposed? What poor, petty stuff this is, and what poor, petty and anecdotal stuff passes for history on this place.Weiterbewegung (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to explain your actions otherwise.

Your actions at John Musgrave & Sons might appear related too. At one moment you're expanding the article considerably, at the next you're then claiming that it's a serious copyvio.

Incidentally, would you like to (please, it's a sincere question) state whether you're 'Maurice J. Halton', the claimed author of the Musgrave content? If this isn't yours, then it shouldn't have been used (and is indeed a copyvio). If it is yours, and you're the copyright holder, then you've (by posting it) licensed it to WP under GFDL (read the edit notice on every page!) and licensing has to be irrevocable, otherwise the whole project would be under permanent threat. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to recognise that you have the WP editor's general right to anonymity. However this does make things rather unclear, and if you were willing to waive it (many editors do, I have for one) then it would become immediately clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Questions regarding identity are improper and will be ignored. 2. The assertion that one Herbert Smith who was, anecdotally, an aircraft designer and who, it is claimed, worked for Dean, Smith and Grace 'in the years before the First World War' (which years?) is unsubstantiated. Citing Air Pictorial (1975) - Journal of the Air League of the British Empire, vol. 37, p. 228 is not a proper secondary historical source unless the identity of the publisher and the location of the archive in which it can be viewed are also revealed. Moreover, there are other published sources on Herbert Smith that make no mention of any involvement with DSG. I dare say that there were, and are, quite a few 'Herbert Smiths about.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to explain your actions otherwise.

There are at least three articles involved (also Rothwell Cars). In two of them, maybe more, you've posted academic work by 'Maurice J. Halton', then later claimed your own actions to be a copyvio. As the implications of this are clearly quite different depending on whether you're the copyright holder (assumed to be MJH), it would obviously be a helpful action to the project to clear this up. Without doing so, we can't tell which, but you've either committed a number of significant copyvios yourself and then acted as if they're nothing to do with you (this is still forgivable, as it's recognised to be a complex issue for new editors) or else you have released this content under an irrevocable licence, then attempted to renege on it by denying your identity since. That's a much more serious and harmful action. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss my proposal to delete the article on Dean, Smith and Grace, please respond to my observations (or not). What part of 'questions regarding identity are improper and will be ignored' is perplexing you? Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(to Weiterbewegung) Now you're getting silly. Who do you think is the publisher of a journal identified as Air Pictorial — Journal of the Air League of the British Empire if not the Air League of the British Empire? It's even linked in the citation in the article. If you want to check it you can try one of these libraries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have a look at Assume good faith? Citing a document requires its location. If its online that means its ful url. Not on line, the address of the building, the room , the shelf, the box. Clear now? Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is here. But I think this discussion is for the article talk page, not an AfD. Have written more fully there. Kim Dent-Brown 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Free lessons in historical research are not something I offer. You are unable to produce the full sentence, let alone the full citation, and the source you offer is a non-scholarly journal article written in over sixty years after the event. This is by no means a primary source and it is highly unlikely to be a reasonably accurate secondary source. To attempt the assertion that ‘This exactly matches the text from the (1960) source’ shows the depth of your naiveté and demonstrates the (low) level of historical narrative the Knowledge (XXG) are prepared to tolerate. If you do indeed ‘think we can be safe in the knowledge that there is only one Herbert, and this is he’, do not include me among the ‘we’.Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(to Weiterbewegung) No, a citation does not require "the address of the building, the room , the shelf, the box". Wherever did you get that idea? (to Kim Dent-Brown) This discussion, insofar as it impacts the issue of whether a source contributes to notability, belongs right here where the decision about keeping or deleting will be made. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil, I take your note to me up to a point. What I didn't want to happen was for the discussion to be lost when this AfD is closed as a Keep. Thus I've put it at the article talk page, not wanting to clutter here too much. However, if tou think it's germane then what I wrote (and what provoked Weiterbewegung above) is the following:

I think the confirmation that there is just one Herbert is in the fascinating article from Flight linked above. It contains these words: Herbert Smith took a Diploma in Engineering at the Bradford Technical College, then spent three years in a workshop and one year in a drawing office before joining the Bristol Aeroplane Company as a draughtsman. He transferred to the Sopwith Company in March 1914, also as a draughtsman, and was there until their liquidation in October 1920.

This exactly matches the text from the source at the Air Pictorial journal. This says: ....joining Dean, Smith & Grace of Keighley, a firm making machine tools who are still very much in business today. From there he sought design and drawing office experiencewith Smith, Major & Stephens who manufactured lifts in Northampton. Having acquired a sound basic training in various aspects of mechanical engineering, Herbert then became involved in the world of aircraft manufacture.

So I think we can be safe in the knowledge that there is only one Herbert, and this is he! Kim Dent-Brown 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should both (or are there now three of you), have a look at Assume good faith? Firstly. the reason why citing a document requires its location: if its online that means its ful url, and if its not on line, the address of the building, the room , the shelf, the box is simple. If it's not available to provide verification, its probably bogus. Otherwise knowledge would be merely heresay, anacdote and allegory. Anyone can just make stuff up. Clear NOW? As I wrote before, the DSG article is without substance. Your two sources cannot triangulate (think about it). Moreover, the reliable source is clear that sources should be as scholarly as possible. A partial sentence in a magazine may, perhaps, support something more solid, but it can't be seized upon on its own simply because it’s what you wanted to find. Unfortunately, you persist in your fallacious assertions that are clearly based only upon ‘what you believe to be’, and not what is the nearest to the truth that we can get. Here endeth this complete waste of time. Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Like all forms of publishing, we make the (rebuttable) assumption of good faith in our authors. The rule is not that sources should be as scholarly as possible, but as practical. We're not an archival research publication. When someone donates material, we assume they have a right to it unless there are indications otherwise. How closely we look, depends of the likelihood of the situation. When someone says a print citation is on a given page of a given journal, I have once in a while thought necessarily to check the facts of publication, but we do not routinely assume the quotation is forged, nor do I routinely ask people where they were physically sitting when they read it, or on what shelf of the library they found it. Potential verifiability is all that is necessary, not a legal chain of evidence. People have the right to challenge, but they are expected to provide an adequate reason. If I want to challenge something, I look first, and then complain if I have looked properly and do not find it. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the US cavalry is it? Predictably hyperbolic in style and typically allegorical in content, DGG’s admonishment purports to contend, in essence, that there is a version of truth, or at least of reasonably verifiable 'fact', that can be arrived at through a consensus of Knowledge (XXG) ‘gurus’. One wonders whether he has ever heard of Marc Bloch; although it’s perhaps to be expected that Henry Ford’s opinion of history has become the standard where he lives. There have been times when most people believed that the earth was flat, and that it was at the centre of the universe. That these fallacies were considered factual by the ‘establishment’ and sometimes brutally enforced, did not make them true. Still, now that the Yanks are here - and me being a mere cowardly Englishman (replete with crooked teeth) - I surrender.Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you liked it so far, you'll love WP:V. Really, take a read of it - the Wikiview that Verifiability does trump Truth.

Funny thing is, that it actually makes sense to work this way (see WP:IMPERFECT). We have a big task and it's open-ended. In particular, there's no "publication" milestone. To get the most good into the most articles, with an editorial team of poorly herded cats, the compromise of choosing verifiability over truth does indeed give a better average result. A deeply average result perhaps, but it's better than viewpoint ping-pong - something that's tolerable in academia because it's done by distinct streams of publication with distinct publications; so that the author's viewpoints don't need to overlap, rather than the collaborative and un-overseen nature of work here. The problem here only becomes really harmful when the literal-minded and basically not too smart start to mistake Googling for text matches with doing research.

Have we heard of Marc Bloch? Of course, we're just not so Annale about it. Incidentally, as a qualified engineering historian, Coanda-1910 might be interesting to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You really do have a low opinion of us, don't you? 'Annale' indeed. Should I register that as a personal attack? Yes, I think I shall.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can we try to keep this discussion on track please? Globbet (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep DSG is a historically significant British machine tool manufacturer (with a world class reputation). The article is a stub at present and I see no reason why it could not be expanded to a sufficient academic standard. Globbet (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 05:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GEROVA Financial Group

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The involved OTRS ticket isn't really relevant to the deletion discussion, but if the article is kept, care needs to be taken to keep it balanced and well-sourced. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep The subject of the article appears to be non-notable only because all the references were deleted. They're acquiring Seymour Pierce, a London-based investment bank. . They're listed on the NYSE, although they had a delisting notice a few months back.. The Telegraph (London) has some interesting comments. They also bought Ticonderoga Securities. And last Tuesday, they were the biggest gainer on the NYSE.. Knowledge (XXG) policy (WP:LISTED) is that, while companies traded on major exchanges are not automatically notable, good sources usually exist for such companies, and a search for sources should be made before proposing deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It also turns out they only used the name Gerova for a few months. Until February 2010, they were called "Asia Special Situations Acquisition Corp", and now they're changing their name to "Seymour Pierce". So searches for Gerova don't bring up full information. --John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Very weak keep God, figuring notability for companies like this is always tricky. I am usually firmly in the deletionist camp with articles like this...BUT the continued listing on the NYSE, and the Bloomberg article about the acquisition, makes me think (despite my comment to the contrary on the ANI discussion) that this company is trending toward meeting the notability requirements The Eskimo (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete This is a small non-notable company that has signed two conracts with other non-notable companies that have not closed. The article is only here because it was put here by a spammer. Finding a few references does not make it notable. Delete for goodness sake. We can put it back if the company ever does anything notable. Hkferryrider (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Seymour Pierce, which Gerova just acquired, is much more notable than Gerova itself, with many references in Google News. Maybe a move would be appropriate. The surviving company is Gerova, but the name of Seymour Pierce will be used. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)2010 December 23

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ORG or generate coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Hrafn_Stalk 08:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Inayan Eskrima

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

A poor article with insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability Dwanyewest (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete I found no independent sources that show this art is notable. Jakejr (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Does not appear to demonstrate sufficient notability. Janggeom (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Found nothing that supports notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

International Modern Arnis Federation Philippines

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

A poor article with insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete The article really says nothing about what makes this organization notable. All it says is that "Its purpose is to promote Modern Arnis" and since the organization is already mentioned in Modern Arnis, this article adds nothing new. Jakejr (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Does not appear to demonstrate sufficient notability. I do, however, consider the founder a notable figure. Janggeom (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete There are no real claims to notability in this article. Certainly nothing that is not in the Modern Arnis article. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Daniel

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

Daniel plays absolutely no role whatsoever in islam. This article was created by a sockpuppet and banned user. Daniel is certainly not a prophet in Islam. Daniel is not mentioned in the Quran once. He is not mentioned in the sahih hadiths once. He is not even mentioned in any major hadith collections. The so-called hadith quoted is not a hadith, which is why he did not provide any citation. The primary editor User:Imadjafar has consented to the deletion of all articles redirected and merged into Biblical figures in Islamic tradition . The creator of this article User:Java7837 is a sockpuppet. Someone65 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep -Aquib (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a reliable third party, discussing the subject of Daniel in Islam. The book is Prophets in the Quran: an introduction to the Quran and Muslim exegesis By Brannon M. Wheeler. His chapter on Daniel (beginning on page 80), by itself, satisfies the Knowledge (XXG) requirement for notability. Although Daniel is apparently not mentioned in the Quran, it appears Wheeler has included him in the book due to the numerous scholarly treatises on Daniel which have appeared in Islamic literature over the past 1400 years.

Why is Someone65 interested in deleting articles when he seems to have little knowledge of either the subject of the article or wp policy for notability? This is in fact just another attempt to remove or suppress content - like the mass page moves he attempted before he got banned for sockpuppetry last week.

Aquib (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep The fact that the article was created by what was to be proven to be a sockpuppet is irrelevant. It was created almost two years before they were blocked. While Daniel is not mentioned in the Qur'an or sahih hadith it would appear that he is considered a prophet by some Muslims. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment the user that sent this to AfD is themselves a blocked sockpuppet. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage.
Keep sufficiently distinctive subject, adequate references. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - there appears to be enough to analyze for this to be a good article. No reason in my mind to delete. The article could always be expanded. Lord Roem (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It takes a village to name a child

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

Non-notable, does not match WP:BK TheAviator • T 22:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom, with OR as an additional consideration. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and per Shadowjams. WuhWuzDat 01:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:COI, WP:SPS, WP:SPAM, etc. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Any decision in this case is bound to be unpopular, and the debate has gone on long past the usual seven days. I fully expect that a review will be sought. Some good points have been made by both sides, and closing deserves a longer explanation than usual. As noted by postdlf, "We have a whole category structure, Category:Centenarians by nationality, and nationality is the typical way any classification of people is first subdivided";. And, as noted by Clarityfiend, "There are various lists of centenarians, but lists by nationality are not among them, with this exception". Suggestions have been made that this should be trimmed to a list of Irish supercentenarians (per Edison), in that we have other lists of supercentenarians by nationality, although, as Yoenit points out, there are only two persons on the list over the age of 110. A suggestion has been made (and some change in the wording) to make this a list of Irish centenarians who are notable for something else besides being a centenarian. Ultimately, though, the question turns upon whether there should be lists of centenarians by nationality (this being the first one) in addition to the other lists of centenarians in a particular group. Although there is some support within this discussion for centenarians by nationality, there is not the wide support necessary for establishing such a precedent. I have no problem with allowing this to be userfied to someone's account. Mandsford 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Irish centenarians

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

I am nominating this article for deletion due to the lists being complete original research. There are no sources matching the lists. Ranks are made up, and there are several sections not needed, such as Individual Biographies. Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Routine calculations such as age calculation are not considered original research (WP:CALC). Ranking by age is also a routine calculation. Nearly all entries have a source (or dedicated article) which supports the age, birth and death dates given. Entries which can't be verified can be removed without having to resort to deletion of the entire article. Yoenit (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Some editing and redefinition is needed if the article is to be kept. I am leaning toward deletion. It claims "centenarians in Ireland are as notable as supercentenarians in other countries" which is an overreaching claim so that persons under 110 can be included. Verified supercentenarians might be the basis for a list. Otherwise the floor is open for a listing of everyone in every country who claims to be over 100. Edison (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I completely missed that claim, which is indeed rather ridiculous. A list of verified Irish supercentarians would be nice, although rather short. However I see no reason why a list on notable (for something other than age) verified Irish centenarians could not exist as well. Yoenit (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Being 100 years old is just not that remarkable, uncommon, or notable these days. It gets minimal courtesy coverage in the local paper. I have known several people 100 or older who were just plain folks, not noted by significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    - That is why I stated they must have a claim to notability other than being old. As an example, List of centenarians (businessmen) does only include notable people, so why can't this be renamed to List of centenarians (Irish) and trimmed as necessary? Yoenit (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Rename List of Irish supercentenarians and trim. There are various lists of centenarians, but lists by nationality are not among them, with this exception. All or none, I say. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is actually the first time I see a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Why couldn't we start making lists of notable centenarians based on nationality? It is no more or less a trivial intersection then ranking them by profession. Yoenit (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Because as explorers, businesspeople, etc., they made their mark for doing more than just continuing to breathe. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    - I am repeating myself here, but once more: A list of notable centenarians who are Irish. I did not say anybody over 100 years of age could be included, only the people who are notable for some other reason. Yoenit (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
      - The criterion is their age, not their accomplishments. Why are you so set on recognizing Irish centenarians? Should we also list 80-year-old Zimbabweans because they're probably just as rare? In military bios, the bar is set at the Medal of Honor; if you've got it, you're practically guaranteed of getting in, but a Distinguished Service Cross won't do it by itself. With age, the consensus is it's supercentenarians, not centenarians. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Calculating someone's age isn't original research ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It is original research ranking these individuals. There could be tons of other cases out there. We can not just assume these positions. Irish supercentenarians doesn't seem all that bad to me. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, a list of people notable for thing X, but grouped by thing Y, is a bad list. People should be grouped, listed, for the thing(s) they are notable for, not for a different reason. WP:NOTDIR, if you want a policy for it. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- There are innumerable lists that index biographical articles based on shared biographical facts, not the facts for which those people are notable. These include lists for places of origin, year of birth or death, alumni of educational institutions... So the fact that the organizing concept of this list is not the basis for the notability of its entries (i.e., they do not have articles because they are centenarians) is not recognized as a valid deletion rationale and is extraordinarily contrary to practice. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that this AFD does not cover any of the other Lists of centenarians, it could only result in deletion if it provided some valid rationale specific to this list that would not be true of all such centenarian lists. Complaints about the "rankings" or whatever used by this list are irrelevant, because that's a matter for editing; that does not cut against the very concept of listing notable Irish people who were centenarians.
Apparently this is the only list of centenarians that is subindexed by nationality? (I'm asking; I don't know). We have a whole category structure, Category:Centenarians by nationality, and nationality is the typical way any classification of people is first subdivided; I think it's fair to say that -by nationality is presumptively encyclopedic. I have not yet seen a reason provided here why we should not subdivide the centenarian lists by nationality as well. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom: this is almost entirely based on original research. And per Fram: "a list of people notable for thing X, but grouped by thing Y, is a bad list." I've just copy-edited the page. One red flag is the repeated use of "notable" in the subheds. It ought not be there. If they're not notable, they shouldn't be here in the first place. Another is the wacky notion that, in Ireland, 100 = 110. I've requested a citation for that dubious assertion. Still another is the list of "Unverified" centenarians. Say what?! I've deleted the double entries for these four, leaving them under "Unverified" but deleting them from "Individual biographies." But what the heck are unverified entries doing on this list? WP:V is a pillar. Finally, this assertion does not reflect the way AfD's are supposed to work: "Given that this AFD does not cover any of the other Lists of centenarians, it could only result in deletion if it provided some valid rationale specific to this list that would not be true of all such centenarian lists." Ummm, we create, edit and delete articles around here one at a time. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a useful, or even valid, argument opposing deletion. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is in this case. Any deletion argument should be evaluated based on its consequences when it would affect much more than just the content at hand, particularly when that content is part of a rather large, organized structure. And no, we don't always "create, edit and delete articles around here one at a time" as is illustrated by the blanket nomination of all the other centenarian lists at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (businessmen), which you have participated in. All of your other comments are complaints about inclusion criteria that are irrelevant to whether the list should be deleted, unless there are no notable individuals who are verifiably Irish and verifiably centenarians. Are all of the articles in Category:Irish centenarians in there by error? postdlf (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  - This may seem a distinction without a difference to some, but not to me: I didn't participate in Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (businessmen) until someone suggested a solution that involved creating a single list.

Lists, like categories, are supposed to be navigation tools, directing users to articles about notable subjects. They should not be a bootstrap method for accreting non-notable, longevity stub-cruft from a yahoo newsgroup into wikipedia nor a way to shoehorn original research from raw data maintained at sites like http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html into wikipedia, either.

We're working on longevity notability and sourcing guidance here. Help would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per David in DC. This list is partly an original research grouping of non-notable people, and partly a bizarre intersection of two unrelated attributes: people notable for something other than longevity, who happen to have reached a particular age. Neither aspect meets the criteria for a list, and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason for keeping this particular mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of manga artists

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

Unmaintainable list. List is extremely broad in scope as there are thousands of manga artists. Even if the list's scope was limited to just the manga artist articles, maintaining the list will be an unenviable task as articles are created, deleted, or redirected. —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn I'll admit to a snow job when I see one. —Farix (t | c) 13:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Listing all of them that have Knowledge (XXG) articles aids in navigation. More useful than a category, easier to sort through. Lot of articles like this exist and have for years. Dream Focus 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep, but limit to manga artists with articles. As I told the nominator on his talk page, other lists with an equally broad scope are maintained (for instance, List of science fiction authors). As his whole arguement for deletion is that the list is too large to be maintainable, and that can't be true because people successfully maintain other lists with equally broad scope, I see no reason for deletion. I don't see this as an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement, because I'm not argueing that the list should be kept merely because other stuff exists, but that the high quality in some of those other lists shows that a high quality could be maintained in this list. Furthermore, there are a whole class of articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are alphabetical indexes, many with very broad subjects (all the articles linked from Portal:Contents/Index and many other articles tagged as being in the scope of Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Index). While I don't know if indexes in general have support on Knowledge (XXG), I feel that it is inappropriate to discuss one index on a clearly notable subject by itself. Either it is appropriate to have an alphabetical index article for a notable topic or it isn't, and that should be discussed in a location that will get more participation than this AfD. Calathan (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Calathan's arguement. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment—I don't think the criteria to include an artist on the list should be that they have an existing wikipedia article, because that could unnecessarily bias the list. But the list should be specifically restricted to those artists that have been commercially published. It would also make the list more useful if it showed significant awards won by each artist and their life span.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep; it seems like a reasonable topic for an article per standard practice (List of SF authors is hardly the kind of exception that OTHERSTUFF is meant to prevent being cited). I leave it to the interested editors to discuss how to limit inclusion, but I would point out that a criterion like 'has an article' is necessary - even just authors who have published one thing once probably runs into the dozens of thousands if you go back to the 1940s or earlier as any real history of manga would have to. --Gwern (contribs) 19:38 25 December 2010 (GMT)
Keep per Calathan and Gwern, and expand to include other useful, sortable criteria such as year of birth (and death) in order to make the list even more useful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of zombie films

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

What distinguishesthis list from Category:Zombie films is three things: rampant original research, continual addition of questionable items, and the inclusion of large numbers of entirely non-notable elements. If you remove those it becomes redundant to the category. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - you missed one important distinguishing trait: the category has no sources listed, where as the list does - all be it few. So therefore if one of these should be deleted to reduce redundancy, it should probably the category. But I'd keep that too. Some people navigate through categories. At least with the list there is a framework to work from, categories it seems are for some reason even less sourced than lists. Anyway, all of the arguments you made against the list, could be made about the category too. Actually ... make that Speedy Keep. --Trippz 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Far away from speedy keep criteria, which are located here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Obvious case of #2-4, and possibly #2-2. Bad faith and prejudicial nom. --Trippz 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep There are lists for roughly every other genre and sub genre; and the social and cultural impact of zombie films justify this list. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep Categories and list articles serve different functions, see WP:CAT & WP:LIST, each has its own disadvantages and advantages, there is no redundancy in having both as per the very relevant WP:CLN, I think the basis of the nom is therefore flawed. Nor would I describe the article as having rampant original research.Number36 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep WP:CLN says specifically that categories and lists do not compete and that one should not be deleted on account of the other. I have just added Zombie Driftwood - a recent release that doesn't have its own article yet. A category is no help in such a case. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - List could certainly be beefed up in terms of references, but I see no valid policy-based reason for deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep I will echo what the others have already said. This list is justified and useful. Categories suck. Lists are better. 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.197.35 (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No analysis. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Articles and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. The list is a notable subject with clear inclusion criteria. Just because there are red-links, doesn't mean the entries are not notable. Lugnuts (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per WP:NOTDUP which specifically excludes the rationale for deletion. Everything else can, and should, be fixed through normal editing. AfD is not cleanup. Jim Miller 17:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. If you kill it, it'll just come back anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was merge to Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Spartaz 05:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Shindō jinen-ryū

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

A poor article with insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep It is a well known karate school with a long history. I have added a couple of citations, which you could have done in the time it took to propose deletion --- just look in Google Books. There is much more in Japanese, but I don't have time for that today. Francis Bond (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. I found several internet articles on this style that appear to be independent, although I'm not 100% sure. Jakejr (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed my vote because, after rereading both articles, I think user Janggeom's idea is better. Jakejr (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai, or keep if the article can be improved. Janggeom (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Article lacks sufficient content and sources to be a stand-alone article. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is one of six styles of one of eleven disciplines that were part of the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Notability has been established so just keep it. No doubt people will flesh it out over time. Francis Bond (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been shown to be notable enough to not be completely removed, but it hasn't been shown that it should have its own article. Since the article has existed for over 5 years, I think there's been time for it to be "fleshed out". Jakejr (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Although there does not appear to be a copyright problem, concerns on that will need to be addressed by editing. Mandsford 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Walter H. Yates, Jr.

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

Contested Prod. This soldier, while reaching general rank, had an unremarkable Cold War career. No particular evidence of notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This biography from the University of Southern Mississippi might offer some further information. The article really needs further sourcing. I also think that it is important to realise that the list at WP:SOLDIER does not state that everyone on the list is "inherently notable", but that they are most likely to have the significant coverage that would make them notable. Thus, this subject still needs to demonstrate significant coverage before notability can be established. Thus, if sources can be found (beyond passing mentions), then the subject would be notable. Without these, though, I don't believe it would be. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a paper reference for the fact that Yates commanded the Berlin Brigade, however, I am concerned that the article might be a copyright violation of this. Is there any way to tell which came first? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  - The first date on the Knowledge (XXG) article appears to be 16 February 2007 with this . This page on Web Archive indicates that the "source" was originally published on 9 November 2004. Given that large chunks of the article seem to use the same words, unless I am mistaken it is a copyright violation (please correct me if I am wrong). This being the case, what is the next step? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    - The website indicates that it was an ROTC assignment. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that puts it in the public domain as a work of the United States military. bahamut0013_deeds 12:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      - Hi, Bahamut, I think you might be right (not sure of US-PD myself, though, as in Australia the Crown would hold copyright in similar circumstances), but can you provide the link that you are looking at which indicates that it was an ROTC assignment? All I am seeing is the blank word doc and the cached version, which doesn't seem to attribute to any source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        Well, the URL http://www.usm.edu/armyrotc/... . I'd say that's pretty conclusive. bahamut0013_deeds 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
        Maybe, but I'm not sure that is conclusive. It doesn't actually attribute the writing to a servicemember. The website that is hosting it belongs to the university, which is surely a private institution. Indeed the "www.usm.edu/armyrotc" page has this on it: "© 1995 - 2010 The University of Southern Mississippi. All rights reserved". As such, unless something is specifically identified as belonging to the US military, I think the most-safe COA is to assume the university owns the copyright and that this article should be deleted and rewritten. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
        You're probably right to err on the side of caution. bahamut0013_deeds 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. WP:SOLDIER says that that an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage if it applies. It does. I do not agree that an officer who held a key post during important events of the Cold War is not notable, nor that a senior officer closely involved the development of the AirLand doctrine is not notable. And I'm unimpressed with the argument that WP:SOLDIER is ostensibly meaningless because it cannot be used to assert notablility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Conditional weak keep: it needs referencing, but commanding the Berlin Brigade and United States Army Berlin during the Cold War is a notable command appointment of a very significant unit. Though the rest of his career seems to be typical staff stuff, that one assignment is enough for me, if barely. bahamut0013_deeds 12:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Per AR above, the condition also includes fixing the copyright violation, which requires a rewrite. bahamut0013_deeds 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep, commended significant units in addition to reaching general rank; good enough for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that given Yates' command appointments and rank he is likely to be notable (per WP:MILMOS/N etc), however this doesn't negate the requirement for significant independent coverage to prove this notability. The MILMOS doesn't say these subjects are automatically notable, only that they are likely to be. IMO this article still lacks reliable sources for verifability. That said I'm prepared to hold off on passing judgement for a bit to see if these sources can be added. Anotherclown (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - copyright violation per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - He is a Major General and in the past this is cause enough for notibility although I do admit it needs more references and some rewriting. --Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

New central

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

Non - notable building that isn't even completed yet. Contested PROD NtheP (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please leave it Rory Anderson

(The above appears to be posted by the author of the article. There is an SPI at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Willrocks10 that might be relevant to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC))

Delete This is a very very small article and isn't needed you ocul probly find alot more information on the internet. Thanks Jragon &#124 PHP isn't just a language, its a way of life. (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No reason at present to think this building will be notable (it's not particularly tall nor does it appear to be of architectural significance) and no refs have been provided to suggest any notabillity either. Maybe when it's completed it might have some notable function, but that would be speculation. Until then it's just a random building of no notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - very little evidence of notability, doubtful that any such evidence could ever be provided. -- role 15:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
KeepMore of the page will be added soon making it better including a photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (duplicate) Are you on a mission to delete all my articles ThePaintedOne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-23 18:07:35
- it wasn't me who proposed this, I just gave my opinion.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of notability. --Elekhh (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note The contents of this page, along with that of The Centrium, Woking, which is also being considered for deletion, have been cut and pasted into a new article, Barratt Developments in Woking. All three articles were created by the same user. If both these article end up being deleted, I can't see how this new one could be notable either, and it could be seen as an attempt to avoid deletion. But in light of the comments made on the other AfD, I'm not going to propose the new page, I'll let others assess it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete no doubt an addition to the tallest building in Woking, which was recently an AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Blocks of flats - especially ones not even completed - are not always easy to show notability for (apologies for lousy style there), and it's not shown here, I'm afraid. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete G11 by User:Jimfbleak. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ioner

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

Non-notable subsidiary and non-notable company. None of the references in the Ioner article even so much as mention the word, and both articles appear to have been created by an SPA. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - could have been speedied, IMHO. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Alexf 13:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note the article creator has been blocked as a spammer. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete under A9, noting that speedy deletion was contested by the article's creator only. Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks Song

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

Contested speedy delete. This objection is on its talk page: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Wikileaks Song article is very relevent and should not be subject to deletion. Wikileaks is a huge social issue worldwide, and this song is supportive and spreading the Wikileaks word. Thenovocastrians (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  - WP:NOBLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As TBotNL succinctly says, the WP:NOBLE page explains the deletion basis here. The underlying Policy, is WP:NOT|ADVOCATE. The song was released very recently; I note the iTunes page doesn't list any other songs for that artist. It doesn't, as far as I can see, pass the relatively high bar (even Knowledge (XXG) doesn't get a page on its own (albeit unreleased) song on this site) that exists for song articles here. –Whitehorse1 07:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not notable: reliable sources don't seem to have paid much attention to this. Chester Markel (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per WP:A9 Tbh®tch Happy Holidays 08:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete (possibly speedy) per WP:NSONGS and WP:TOOSOON. There's also a serious COI issue here, as the article was created by the band themselves. Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:NSONGS. The defense of the article above indicates that WP:NOTADVOCATE is another valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly any coverage . LibStar (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A search on "ALPSP" (instead of "Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers") returns 158 hits in Google news, 2,900 in Google books and 3,600 in Google scholar. Racconish 12:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep for this notable association. I have added a {{Rescue}} template to the article, and I am doing research to add pertinent secondary inline citations to this stub. I will also add links from other articles to this article, with appropriate inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be notable enough. Basing an afd on a Google search is flawed in the extreme and not recommended practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE, plesae provide evidence of significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep If those it represents are notable, than so is it. Just like a record company is notable if it has a lot of big name stars published under it, and likewise for film studios. Dream Focus 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. "The largest association of scholarly and professional publications in the world", awarded, publishing a "most stimulating" Journal. The article is now inline sourced, but the subject is rich, other sources exist and the article can be grown.Racconish 00:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment "Recipient of the 2003 Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) Award for "Service to Not-for-Profit Publishing", HighWire collaborates with scholarly societies, university presses and publishers to host a large body of clinical and research literature." from the Highwire Press article. I hope to obtain a list of the ALPSP awards for every year, to be added to the article, with links to the appropriate organization or person where possible. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. 2010 Awards list added. Racconish 13:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

County Road 158 (Leon County, Florida)

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

Declined PROD. Non notable county route. Just because its getting stimulus funds does not mean its notable. Admrboltz (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable city street designated as a county road. –Fredddie ™ 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - This article is not notable enough for a standalone article and there is no suitable list to merge it to. I would say delete but this does have some ground in being a former state highway. We really need to create a list of former FL state highways to cover these types of roads. Dough 48 72 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral per User:Dough4872, but I'd prefer a List of County Roads in Leon County, Florida. County Road 427 (Florida) is in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. ----DanTD (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete not notable for its own article, debated whether it's notable for any other article. --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete not notable enough for an article. Imzadi 1979 → 01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Emperial Institute of Hotel Management"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Emperial Institute of Hotel Management"

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

dismally fails WP:ORG. this private institute article looks like an WP:ADVERT. nothing in gnews for "Emperial" and gets one gnews hit for alternate spelling . LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable, no independent sources, looks like an advertisement.Autarch (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Advertisement....--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable (est. 2010), unsourced, advertisement. Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season. Fenton suited up for, but did not play in, a December 16 NHL game. If he does appear in a game, qualifying under WP:NHOCKEY, the redirect can be undone and the information would continue to be available. Mandsford 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Fenton (ice hockey)

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

As a professionally athlete, Fenton fails WP:NHOCKEY, having never competed professionally. The NHL does not consider sitting on the bench as a back-up goalie as playing, and we generally take the same stance here. He was not signed to a professional contract, and therefore was not paid. As an amateur, a few sources provided are not more than trivial mentions and his amateur career and a pretty non-notable program is insufficient to otherwise achieve notability. Without being notable based on his playing career, in order for him to be deemed notable, we would have to accept that the coverage surrounding his being signed for one game by an NHL team is substantial to overrule WP:BLP1E, which it simply is not. Grsz 11 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. Reso lute 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your vote has no rationale. See WP:NOREASON. NOTNEWS does not apply as coverage of the aubject extends beyond his one-game NFL signing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He was a non-notable college hockey player. His claimed notability revolves entirely and completely around the news story of an unknown former college player getting to sit on the bench for a night as an emergency back up. He is known for only one event, and that one event is just a news story. Reso lute 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he has multiple articles discussing him during his college playing days as well as his one-game fill in disproves all of this. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: I would say that "we generally take the same stance here" is a little on the mild side; the NHL is the sole arbiter of who counts as playing in an NHL game or not, and the NHL rule is that you have to take the ice to be counted as having played. Goalies on emergency fill-in ATOs happen every year or so, in similar circumstances; heck, having been a season-ticket holder in Springfield for years, I can recall at least three instances where an AIC goalie sat on the bench. Absolutely a WP:BLP1E. Ravenswing 04:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of him extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes. And if these other emergency signees satisfy the GNG then maybe we should have articles about them as well. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there hasn't. There are trivial mentions. But AIC isn't a notable program, so it's back-up goalie isn't going to get coverage unless he did something spectacular. The best potential is when he was playing good after not starting for years, but he's mentioned for two (short) paragraphs.

Grsz 11 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't the backup, he started his freshman year at least. They are not trivial mentions. And why isn't AIC a notable program? I see people here who keep repeating that things are "not notable" without providing any substantive evidence to that effect. In any case, notability is not inherited, so AICs notability is irrelevant. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season. The article I read did say he signed a 1-day contract with the particulars undisclosed, thus a portion of the nomination reason appears to be incorrect. That being said, the subject still is WP:BLP1E. Merge the info in the Coyotes season article and redirect the content. The NHL does recognize him as a player as can be seen here. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of him extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season. It is a good story and deserves a mention in the Coyotes' season article, but he is not notable enough for his own article. Dolovis (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of Fenton extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes, well into his college playing years where, in his Freshman year, he was Rookie of the Week and Goalie of the Week multiple times in his league.Multiple, reliable, third-party sources, all supplied in the article, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY is a counterpart to the GNG, not a replacement for it. ANYTHING that satisfies the GNG ought to be kept as GNG is the foundation of the notability guideline. Note also that NHOCKEY says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". I will also request that the closing administrator please do their best to weigh the strength of the policy-based arguments here and not just treat it as a majority vote, which it is not. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —- Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
By all means add some of that coverage to the article then, of the 3 references that have anything to do with his amateur career, two are passing mentions which are just listing off the "of the week" honours and are not specifically about the individual. So currently it does not look like there is coverage beyond his one event with the Coyotes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't trivial passing mentions, they discuss him enough to pass that threshold, and the third, as you say yourself, isn't even in the realm of a passing mention. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No generally to be considered not passing mentions you need a couple paragraphs or have a significant portion of the article be about the player himself and not just talked about in context to another topic, in this case the main topic is the league awards. The fact that they mention him is just WP:ROUTINE in that they list who won the award every week. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is one interpretation of the GNG, but the actual guideline says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There's no detailed explanation of what a trivial mention is. Reference #1 has a paragraph about him winning Rookie of the Week and Reference #3 has 2 paragraphs about him. Reference #2 is almost entirely about him. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't address him in detail, all it does is state he won an award and played well. That is not adressing him as a person in a significant way, you can't write a biography off that. Stating how someone played is just a routine comment on some games. If there is significant coverage of him it shouldn't be hard to find other articles should it be? -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's significant enough to discuss an ice hockey player or any other athlete who has played well enough to be a Rookie of the Week or Goalie of the Week. A trivial passing mention or an example of something that can't be used to establish notability would be like a list of active players, a simple stats box or some such. Refs 1 and 3 have actual paragraphs; note that I've deliberately left out the 30 or so news articles that simply mention that he played in a game, or the one that mentioned he had 46 saves in a game, because those ARE trivial passing mentions. Finally, as I've stated, Reference #2 is almost entirely about Fenton himself, over multiple paragraphs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

These are relatively trivial awards as far as the NHL goes, never mind as far as a bottom-of-the-league, just barely Div I team goes. You may be failing to understand the amount of publicity AIC gets compared to the Michigans, Denvers and Boston Colleges of the collegiate world. I'm almost certainly the only person likely to contribute to this debate ever to see AIC play, and I lived in the city AIC is in for 12 years, and Springfield Cathedral High School gets more sports coverage. I'm with DJ in believing this to be routine sports coverage, as WP:ROUTINE explicitly addresses, and that's pushing the point, because the USCHO website is not what most people would consider mainstream media coverage. Ravenswing 20:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about the NHL. One does not need to play games for the NHL to satisfy the GNG. Does anyone actually read this policy? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete No disrespect to the player but it's received media coverage because it's a nice feel good Christmas time story. And about AIC yes it's pretty much been in a box in the corner of the basement of college hockey since the program started. But we're missing the point, he could have come from Nowhereville College but if he's played in the NHL he's notable. So the real question is- did he play or not? And the answer is no, Fenton Stats NHL.com- he has no recorded NHL stats. So like the many Jr, minor pro, and college players we delete quite often he's not notable currently however the article can be recreated if he becomes notable in the future (i.e has actual NHL stats, 100+ AHL games, becomes a notable college or pro head coach etc...) Bhockey10 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about the NHL. One does not need to play games for the NHL to satisfy the GNG. Does anyone actually read this policy? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few of us, thank you; you might do well to practice WP:CIVIL a bit better. As it happens, there are quite a few of us who do not believe Fenton passes the GNG, in so far that coverage stems from a single event, is "routine sports coverage," or comes from sources not deemed to satisfy the GNG. We are quite capable of disagreeing with your interpretation of the relevant policies AND have our own understanding of them. Ravenswing 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't throw CIVIL at me, that's nothing but a red herring. Nothing I've done is uncivil. Anyone who thinks Fenton fails the GNG is sorely mistaken. However, it clearly matters not one iota, so do as you will. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking an article on NHL.com (hmm, what else do they cover), a blog, and a single AP article surpass GNG. This guy clearly isn't notable except for sitting his ass on the bench for 60 minutes. Grsz 11 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

An admin may delete this article at their leisure, I'm tired of trying. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly not the attitude to take. Numerous editors have attempted to explain to you the policy basis to this deletion decision. You're WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance makes it hard to deal with, however. Grsz 11 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not an adversarial process, and no one's set up a cagefighting ring. We're here to present arguments and debate stances. The part where you're being uncivil is in declaring that no one (other than you) has read the GNG simply because no one agrees with your interpretation. If you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion, no one is forcing you to try. Ravenswing 18:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shannon McCabe

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

No reliable sources found to establish notability or verify claims. One or two claimed guest appearance on TV episodes do not confer the level of notability required. This article (and companion article Paul Dale Roberts) being maintained as a vehicle for self-promotional spam by IP and COI accounts ignoring warnings, removing tags, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as per nom.Autarch (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete as article is unreferenced and self-promotional. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Delete Nobody advocated keeping the article, which, as the nominator asserts, is a duplicate of an existing article about a high school. If it appears that the school is also known, or has ever been known, by this name, that can be mentioned in the article. If that's the official name of the school, people may debate over whether to move the title. There appears to be nothing else to merge, nor anything in the history to preserve by redirecting, nor is this a logical search term. Mandsford 14:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonial Heights High School & Technical Center

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Colonial Heights High School & Technical Center

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

This page is a barebones duplicate of Colonial Heights High School, and there is nothing to show that the Technical Center is a part of this school's name. Having this page redirect seems pointless since it is not a name that is commonly used to refer to the school. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirect - Should have been speedied as clear CSD A10 (recent duplicate article) long ago. Cannot now as no longer 'recent'. However, the page can be uncontroversially blanked and redirected to Colonial Heights High School.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge then delete. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Dale Roberts

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

No reliable sources found to establish notability. Subject claims to have held a Guinness record for a single month in 1979. This article (and companion article Shannon McCabe) being maintained as a vehicle for self-promotional spam by IP and COI accounts ignoring warnings, removing tags, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete -- warnings and requests were often repeated and immediately ignored.--S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)14:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Autarch (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Lack of references in article and through a Google search indicate that this person is not notable. Article seems promotional. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was merge to Aingers Green. Courcelles 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

South Heath, Essex

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

The google streetview seems to show that this is more a farm than a hamlet. No sources are in the article (an A-Z map is not a source) and my own searching could not come up with anything. Quantpole (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:51, 16 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 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Aingers Green. Far too small for its own article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge to Aingers Green. Almost no info on this online, OS map seems to show a collection of 4 or 5 buildings (not sure how many are dwellings), which must be below the threshold of notability without other references. It's not even named on the nearest road signs . Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to Aingers Green. Not a settlement in its own right. Nancy 12:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Olga Nunes

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

Not notable. I was unable to find a reference to her that wasn't a social network on the Google search results I looked at. There are zero articles containing her name in the Google News archives. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's the criteria here's actually at least two in Google, in Wired and Geekosystem: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22olga+nunes%22&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dZ6jRXR8hToHnVM&cid=4420195657456331&ei=8YsKTfGgGoS2sAPSmLHMCg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQqgIwAA Also on BoingBoing here and here: http://boingboing.net/2010/02/07/xkcds-we-love-the-in.html http://boingboing.net/2010/11/11/semi-fictional-love.html Myrahnha (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

These aren't great sources and they only have cursory mentions of her name. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, it's xkcd fancruft. It will be kept because every important, admin-ranking Knowledge (XXG) editor is an xkcd nerd, but it's just another step towards becoming a meaningless mish-mash of zombie and ninja fads. 86.161.30.123 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to pass verifiability despite anybody's personal attachment. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:01, 17 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 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Dan Eldon#Film adaptation Mandsford 13:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Journey is the Destination

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NFF. This project has not begun principal photography and should not have its own article per reasoning outlined in NFF. Sources do exist stating that the film is slated to be made sometime next year and naming Daniel Radcliffe as connected to the project (, , ). Film's IMDb entry lists its production status as "unknown". Until we can verify through reliable sources that principal photography has indeed begun, we are dealing mostly with speculation. No prejudice towards recreation once commencement of principal photography can be properly verified. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect for now to Dan Eldon#Film adaptation where this proposed film project is already mentioned. The topic currently does not have coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, 23:15, 16 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, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was Keep as rewritten. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Iran

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

This article is about a non-notable (as far as I can tell) Alaska parody. The Vince Vance version is notable enough for its own article (as it was one of the group's only two hits, the other being "All I Want For Christmas Is You"), however, this article isn't about the Vince Vance song at all, but an entirely obscure, non-notable song by a different group of artists. It also ludicrously implies that John McCain was referring to the Alaska song during his campaign (he wasn't; not being from Alaska, the only version he was ever likely to have heard would be the Vince Vance recording). Suggest deleting this article and then starting a new article here about the Vince Vance recording. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The Vince Vance version may be marginally more notable, but doesn't merit its own article unless it has at least as many sources as this one does. (Vince Vance didn't chart until 1993; they were pretty obscure in 1980; their "Bomb Iran" song didn't chart, and I don't see any evidence of notability.) It's not even clear to me which band had the idea first; the article itself mentions the existence of a third version, and it seems at least as likely that a dozen other radio djs independently made the same relatively obvious joke. The John McCain claim in the article merits a {{cite}} tag. All of this should be a function of editing the existing article, rather than AFD. There may or may not be the definitive news story out there tracing the origin of the joke that could resolve these questions. THF (talk) 13:27, 19 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, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom, without taking any position as to whether there should be an article about any of the "Bomb Iran" songs. I agree with Stonemason that John McCain was more likely to have heard the Vince Vance "Bomb Iran" than this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing my "delete" recommendation because the article has been rewritten. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not a notable song. The Vince Vance and the Valiants version was notable, was called a "smash hit" in an Associated Press news article and was what McCain cited: . Edison (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Maybe marginally notable before the John McCain controversy; but clearly notable afterwards. There is some reliable source coverage of the Alaskan version of the song (cited in the article), but this article does currently place undue weight on it. ~~By the way, while McCain probably didn't hear the Alaskan version, it is not inconceivable that he might have heard about it through Sarah Palin.~~ The CNET cite in the previous comment does not prove McCain was citing the Vince Vance version ("It's not clear whether McCain was thinking of the Vince Vance lyrics"); McCain may have even thought it up himself—in 1979-1980, there are no less than six independently copyrighted versions of "Bomb Iran" (ironically the Vince Vance version appears not to have been registered for copyright until 1995). DHowell (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- The McCain incident occurred in early to mid 2007, while McCain himself didn't nominate Palin as his VP until the national convention in 2008 (and, as everyone who followed that campaign remembers, McCain didn't really vet Palin prior to nominating her; thus, it's unlikely he and Palin were in particularly close content more than a year before, in 2007). Stonemason89 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  - You're right, I stand corrected. However, I have improved the article, removing excess content about Tom Rivers and adding a section on the Vince Vance version of the song, as well as other info about various versions of the parody. Please reconsider your nomination and delete arguments given the current state of the article. DHowell (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination per DHowell's rewriting the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Epsilonism

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

The subject of the article is so fringe that it seems no scholars of any kind have bothered to treat it in any way. Sources used in the article are the fringe theorist publications and websites themselves. Found zero coverage of the subject among reliable sources, fails notability guidelines. Athenean (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete fringe antisemitic theories with no known coverage in mainstream media. The article Epsilon Team suffers from the same problem and should be deleted as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be a topic where the independent reliable sources (if they exist) would likely be in the Greek language. I would support deletion if a capable editor who speaks Greek could check it out and confirm its lack of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:38, 16 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, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: No highly reliable sources to verify the article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Space Jockey (Alien)

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

This seems to go too deep into the fictional world D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: While I'm not sure about the nom's rationale, I think the basic problem here is a lack of coverage in secondary sources. The creature's only significant appearance is in the film Alien, and all the relevant info about its design, creation, role in the story, and impact is already found there (as the major contributor to that article, I can attest to this). I've had this article marked for merging and/or cleanup for a couple of years but nothing's come of it, likely because there's not much to say about the thing other than what's already said in the film article. The misleading argument for stand-alone articles on fictional characters/creatures is usually that they "appear" in multiple works, but this doesn't necessarily equal cultural impact nor guarantee that there will be enough secondary source coverage to draw from to write a decent encyclopedia article. Besides, this creature's "appearances" are limited to a single role in a graphic novel and as a background prop in a couple of frachise computer games. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 16 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 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The character is already mentioned in parent articles. Mattg82 (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge to List of Alien characters. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to merge as it isn't a character really. It's just a corpse they come across, little more than a prop. It has no active role in the story. The list article is a huge WP:PLOT fail anyway, consisting of 99.9% character-specific plot summaries. The characters' roles are already explained in the plot summaries of the individual film articles, where the Space Jockey's role in the story (as well as its real-world info re: creation, design, construction) is explained in full. No sense adding yet more plot regurgitation to an already overly plotty list. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
A corpse can be a character, the non-verbal facehuggers are characters, as is the adult xenomorph, which also has no dialogue. People are even credited as being corpses in credits of some films. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are creatures, not characters. That's like saying that the triceratops in Jurassic Park is a character, or the half-dozen unidentified mummified corpses in Alien vs. Predator. The Space Jockey is just a set piece, a prop...it has no active role in the story and isn't played by any actor. It's literally a set piece made of plaster & paint. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete despite the friendly suggestion of an IP address... this topic has no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. It's basically an empty concept. Nothing to write about that isn't just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Smooth Grandmama

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

I have doubts on the notability of this song. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 16 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 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to ApologetiX: not notable enough for a separate article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Marc Parizeau

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

Non-notable person, unreferenced BLP. No reliable sources available to pass WP:GNG. There appears to be another Marc Parizeau who gets some hits for being the director of CLUMEQ, but he does not appear to be the same person described in this article. SnottyWong 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 10 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, 16 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 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable and no reliable sources found to verify this BLP. Mattg82 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep, meets notability guidelines in terms of having been nominated for a Juno and a Gemini. PK T(alk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE (none of the awards one appear to be major). No indication of substantive coverage in Google News/Books. Hrafn_Stalk 08:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Seems like WP:ARTSPAM. Afro (Talk) 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Odhrán Allen

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the primary author of the article on Odhrán Allen. He is an important figure in the contemporary Irish gay rights movement and within that sector and in the wider gay rights field in Europe, he is considered an expert on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) mental health. I have yet to add these details to the article, as I am trying to source appropriate references. Keep Spectrumfive (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 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 00:15, 16 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 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. WP:GNG looks like the most relevant standard for this case, but I'm not seeing the nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that would be needed to pass. The story in The Independent is the only source that looks independent (heh) and reliable, but he is mentioned only trivially there, and that's only one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find anything in GS. General notability seems weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no evidence that he is "important figure in the contemporary Irish gay rights movement". Smacks of a vanity piece. Snappy (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Image Electronics

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

Spammy article on company of questionable notability,. The article claims they are "responsible for the design of nearly 20% of the world's desktop color scanners", a claim that is NOT backed up by their references. WuhWuzDat 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 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 00:14, 16 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 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete as an WP:ADVERT. suspiciously created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
weak delete: Plenty of passing mentions in sources available; I think their products are more notable than the company itself but no sources to verify the article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill Coleman (singer)

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

No decent sources found to verify BLP. No charting records as far as I can see. Mattg82 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 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 00:14, 16 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 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete The sources provided do not look reliable and the best I found was a short review in Irish Times, 16 February 2007. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)