Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 14 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was wrong venue - take to Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion. Also, please note the existence of Category:Banned Knowledge users. –Black Falcon 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

user page of indefinetly blocked user Wikieat (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Otherkin. Arbitrarily0  02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This is an article on an obscure branch of the otherkin subculture (which is itself pretty obscure). It has no reliable sources whatsoever, and on searching I was unable to find any - the only people who used the word 'draconity' are these people themselves. An article on the same subject was previously redirected back in 2006 at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Draconity, but I think it should be deleted outright - there's no evidence that this is a notable concept. Robofish (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Redirect, probably. I wrote this article when I was naive as to Knowledge policy, way back in the day; it was rightfully merged to otherkin. It looks like someone has recreated it as a standalone article. Since there has been a merger in the past, outright deletion might prove thorny due to attribution of previously merged information, but it certainly does not merit an article of its own at this point. Shereth 02:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I find it highly unlikely there are significant RSs on the topic, given the dearth of them for the otherkin article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, unsuccessful candidate the public office. Lacks GHits adn GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:POLICIAN ttonyb (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(55636) 2010 TO300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a hoax (although a speedy was declined), since the details just don't seem very plausible and there are no corroborating citations. Anaxial (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/(55636) 2010 TO300, a related creation by same editor. — Scientizzle 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Looks very much like a hoax to me, and verging on speedy delete at that, given the nonsensical name and the unlikely claims made for its planetary system Anaxial (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Procedural close. DRV is that way Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

It might have made it because of mass voting, but that doesn't change the fact that it is entirely promotional. BigHappyHarry (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability or references. "References" section is just a collection of links to Christian websites, which fail to assert that this article is worthy of inclusion. SuaveArt (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is only a day old. Still working on it, Please allow time for this article to be finished. This article has reason to exist, there are probably close to over 100,000 people a year that either attend or watch the onething conferences online. This section was marked for deletion because of all the references being Christian? its a Christian conference, the references are going to be Christian websites, magazines, news sources. Just because they're Christian-based doesn't automatically make them an unreliable third party source. -travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be adding more references in the following days...please hold out on making a decision until I have time to do so. Thanks -travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the user that flagged this site prefer/wish that this page was merged with the International House of Prayer article? And believes that this page by itself is unnecessary? Originally i thought that it would be found listed as too much info on the IHOP page..so created a second article. -travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think this conference is notable, not to mention the amount of people it draws alone makes it worthy of an article in my opinion. If Promise Keepers gets a wiki page, i don't see why this couldn't. I also could see this article merged with International House of Prayer as suggested, but agree that it might be better organized separate. Disagree with just deleting the article though.72.214.67.12 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • merge to Continual Prayer which needs to be expanded to cover more mentions of individual groups. This particular one is not so ONETHING is a part of a larger global movement known as “24-7 Prayer as to be appropriate for an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think i disagree with merging of the Onething page to Continual Prayer, I do think that article needs to be expanded upon, and might be good mentioning the conference along with it already speaking of IHOP.....but to merge the two doesn't seem right. If given time i can also help work on the continual prayer site, but i have other priorities first -Travisharger 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)
  • currently i'm adding in-line citations to the International House of Prayer article....will add more references and inline citations to the Onething conference article right afterwards. This might take a few days because I have alot of real work to fit in between.Travisharger 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I also highlight probable socking WP:SOCK from IP "72.214.67.12" which geolocates to Chesapeake VA where Travis Harger is located . He also did the same thing on the IHOP Afd by "voting" twice. Annette46 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
not trying to butt in, but my IP address is: 72.218.20.128.....yes I am from chesapeake, VA.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The IP range 72.192.0.0 - 72.223.255.255 is assigned to Chesapeake Cox Communications. "Dynamic IP address allocation". Oh so its the "it wasn't me it was the one-armed man" defence. Please sign your posts by postfixing 4 consecutive tildes (~) see WP:SIGN. Annette46 (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Being shown on television doesn't impress me - undoubtedly it was on channels associated with the religious views of the participants. Not independent. As to Charisma Magazine, "The official site of Charisma magazine provides news, analysis, prophetic commentary and teachings for charismatic and Pentecostal Christians" (Google blurb). Not independent. The coverage of the death of a leader of IHOP/OneThing is irrelevant. Who covered it, anyway? Places like those here? Peridon (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's amazing how magazines and television networks with an interest in Pentecostalism cover Pentecostal events. To say that they are not independent is flat-out wrong. Neither of these entities (God.tv or Charisma Magazine) has an organizational relationship to IHOP or OneThing. They merely share a common perspective - a perspective shared by over half a billion people. Charisma Magazine, in particular, is a reliable and independent publication for all the reasons given at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charisma_(magazine). IHOP and OneThing are notable according to Knowledge's standards. Glen Davis (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per the abundance of third party sources listed in the article. Do not merge with International House of Pancakes by any means. JBsupreme (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep A conference on the scale alleged is surely notable. The International House of Prayer is a one paragraph article that has had what ought to be a separate article on a Nigerian organisation imposed on it. This puts that article into an unacceptable condition. Merging with 24-7 Prayer (currently a redirect to Continual prayer -- which fails to mention either the Moravian Church at Hernhut, Germany or the recent "24-7 prayer" movement) would also be unsatisfactory. "24-7" ought to have its own article, not be a redirect to some 5th century history and Continual Prayer needs expansion to cover both it and the Moravians. I would welcome the creator expanding the presetn article, and providing better sources for it, as in-line references, citing for example coverage of it in the Christian media. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A privately-held company that has no reliable sources listed and I cannot seem to find any to establish notability of this company. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The Businessweek reference noted above is a directory listing, and the Marketwire references is a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previously deleted article. Artist fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has never charted. Article sounds like it was written by a friend or fan and manages to pimp his website in the process. Did sign to a notable label, but hasn't done anything. Was supposed to have a release in Feb 2008. Almost 2 years later, it still hasn't happened. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, PLUS... It should be noted that the only two sources actually cited with ref tags are bad links, the second of which I had to remove because when I clicked on it, it actually said "NOT FOUND BITCH". I am not kidding. Check the history/diffs for yourself. The other links at the bottom of the page are equally irrelevant or immaterial/non-substantial, such as the Vibe article which does not actually link to an article. I searched Google News archives and found out a lot of information about young car racing enthusiasts. Ugh what a horrible wreck this one really is. If it can some how magically be fixed, please do leave me a note on my talk page so I can reconsider! Given everything I and the nom have written thus far, this is a strong endorsement for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Reference review:

  • Launchpad: Reliable, not independent of the subject.
  • Bazaar- Reliable, download site, trivial.

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Unnotable proclaimed "famous" storyteller with no actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. CSD declined after creator threw in a bunch of seemingly notable aspects of this person, but still has provided no sources to support any of it. 3 ELs were added, of which only one a third-party, reliable source and is clearly a directory, with only a brief mention of this person. The other two are personal sites and there fore neither useful as sourcing or for showing notability. Without significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, this article fails WP:N and WP:BIO, and it would be impossible to properly comply with WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment The speedy deletion you put on the page has already been declined. If your concerned with notable storytellers, with little in the way of coverage in reliable, third-party sources, you may be interested in perusing the other storyteller articles here is a few for you to check.
Speedy deletion and AfD are different things. CSD being declined does not mean it can no longer be deleted, only that there needs to be community discussion about it. I'd suggest you actually attempt to support why your creation should be kept than throwing links and just point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't throw in links to make a point, just pointing out areas that a sedulous individual such as yourself could also focus on to make possible improvements.Jymbo04 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

CSD prior due to notability issues. Here again with essentially same concerns, though I figured I'd put it up to community debate this time around. NJA (t/c) 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In what publications do notable manufacturers of bass guitars appear? The Blue Book of Electric Guitars is a possibility, and Pangborn is there along with a hundred others. What other sources are there? I suppose that The electric guitar: a history of an American icon by A. J. Millard wouldn't work too well for a British manufacturer. Maybe the Electric guitar handbook by Alan Ratcliffe published in London in 2005. Can anybody get a copy? There is one at the Los Angeles Public Library. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced and badly written promotional piece about a non-notable subject (no third-party articles on Google). sixtynine 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • note: the above mentioned references have been added to the article, as well as a few more (the additional one aren't enough to establish WP:N, but do collaborate items in the article), also neutralized the POV and removed some unsourced WP:BLP issues that I couldn't find refs for. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Well-written article, but subject does not meet notability guidelines for people. He is not notable independent of the business he created. --SquidSK 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - The man seems to have achieved many notable things I just can't find anything which covers his life instead of his achievements, in detail. If I could find that I would change my vote. Panyd 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable private academic project, no publications, no relevant hits on Google Books, subject overlaps device for classifying apples Wtshymanski (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge into RISC or OISC; the concept is noteworthy as an example of either, if not as its own thing. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by nominator: What if there was an article so obscure that no-one ever read it? Could this be it? A little feedback would be helpful here...how else are we going to keep the belly button lint and toenail cippings from building up in the dark corners of the Knowledge? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This article was created by a person with a conflict of interest, and although it makes claims to notability, I wasn't able to verify this person's notability with my own search, and the article lacks the reliable sources that could do so. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable non profit, created by a (now blocked) promotional-only account. Initially a copyright violation - very little left after cleanup, no non-trivial third party sources, no assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence of notability. Article gives no sources, and web search fails to produce any significant independent coverage. Essentially created as a promotional article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this businessman, setting aside minor, passing references like this one in Creamer Media's Mining Weekly and the short business-stub-type writeups at Reuters and in Forbes (Gcache linked, doesn't seem to be active on Forbes.com anymore). Doesn't meet WP:BIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - his role as a senior executive of DRDGold is reliably sourced, and the company is notable - it doesn't yet have a WP article of its own but it's referred to in several articles, and his role in the company forms the basis of the notability claim. It's very hard to find lengthy, detailed coverage of this sort of person - they tend to keep a low profile - so you'll not usually find much more than "business-stub-type writeups" except in the case of a few flamboyant characters or major multinationals. However, the coverage is independent and reliable. andy (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that only businesspeople who work for multinationals are notable? Actually he does work for a multinational... but that alone doesn't guarantee PR. andy (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not seeing independent coverage here besides the supposed Forbes link, which is dead. If he wants to be a private person, and avoids interviews etc., then why should we ram a poorly sourced bio down his throat? Pcap ping 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

does not reach notability standards, contains mostly original research Aliciakeyzz (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. He served as the Chief of Staff of a high profile United States Senator for 15 years with plenty of media attention. He is an announced candidate for Governor of Maine with GOBS of media attention. I don't see how there is even a question about notability here. FreeRight (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep.There is no question about his significance as a state politician and certainly no question in terms of his run for governorship. If you read the article, it states that he announced candidacy on January 12, 2010. You can see addition sources in the article to prove this. Crimsonator (talk) 3:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Demo '93 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album. Cannibaloki 14:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A5. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:NOT; Knowledge is NOT a dictionary. Article was speedy deleted previously; I attempted to PROD this one, and the original poster removed it without listing a reason or adding verifiable sourcing mhking (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was No Consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This article fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. There are few matches in Google News and those than exist are tangential mentions rather than establishing notability. The current references are insufficient and there is little prospect of this improving in the future, particularly as the article has already been tagged for improvement for a year. Ash (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep (as article creator). I have also improved the references for the article, since this AfD was first listed. --Elonka 22:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Most of the info in this article, and the claim to fame comes from being in a management position at EA, and consequently being listed on the credits for a number of video games. There's very little independent coverage about him. Pcap ping 00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • very weak keep article and topic don't appear to meet WP:N. That said, his roles are significant and it's plain that he's pretty well known in the field as he has penned, and had published, articles about his work (see article) plus he's been interviewed fairly often for example. He certainly seems fairly well known and probably meets WP:ENT. But it certainly isn't a clear call. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Close enough for me. This isn't just some random guy who works in QA for a game developer, which is the sort of entry our guidelines are intended to keep out. If the sources are a bit on the inadequate side, I think his obvious involvement in the design of notable games is enough to push it over. Powers 14:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (Check needed) No way is the photo in the megamers article above the same "Mike Perry" as in the current article photo, they even have different eye colours. Can someone find a way to check out if we are dealing with the same people or if this is a partial hoax?—Ash (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 NJA (t/c) 09:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I came across this page while patrolling new pages. I first marked it for speedy deletion using {{Db-A7}}, but reconsidered when I looked at the first version of the article, which mentions this rapper has been signed to a label. I searched for references and found this, which says he produced an album, although the album never charted. Still, the label doesn't appear to be a major one and the album never charted, so I'm not convinced he meets our notability guideline for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). Liqudluck✽talk 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Nancy. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod, non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0  03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A minor painter. Per a discussion on the author's talk page, I understand and respect what she was trying to do here, but I can find no sources to indicate that she is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, whether under WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. No discussion or reviews of her art, nor anything else I can find in a similar vein. Since the article's information is already in House of Bondić, I do not think a merge is needed, though I guess a redirect would be appropriate.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Gee Willikers, the article was just created today. I deprodded it because the prodders failed to notice that the article subject was misspelled, which certainly hampered any efforts made to determine notability, and because I determined that a Croatian documentary was made about her (which I can tell was broadcast nationwide in Croatia via TV listings in their newspapers). I also identified the existence of an article about her in a Croatian journal from 2007, which I added to the Talk:Jelena Dorotka page. I tagged the article for notability when i deprodded it to assist in the finding of sources. I guess unless the AfD is withdrawn, there are only 7 days to determine her true level of notability (and turn into a redirect if she's not). Finding sources will not be easy due to the time period at issue, subject matter, and language issue.--Milowent (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: FWIW, I did notice that "Dorotka" and "Dorotke" were both possible spellings of the subjects name, and searched under both before PRODding. Since I don't know anything about the Croatian language (a South Slavic language) or the transliteration of Croatian names, whereas the author speaks Russian (an East Slavic language), I thought I'd leave it to her or others to make a judgment on the proper title for the article. I also searched under variations including "Hoffmann." And I found the references to the "documentary", too, but that seems to be a non-notable half-hour production (see here and here) about the fact that she was friends with various notable artists. Really, I don't go around nominating articles willy-nilly!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Various spellings of her name in Croatian sources are due to declension. Nominative is "Dorotka", so the article name is correct. When using Google, it is advisable to look for all forms, though. As for her notability, looks like a borderline case. The 28-minute documentary about her was broadcast on national television (Croatian Radiotelevision). Whether that's enough, I'm not sure. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
it could be easily reworded, i already changed some of it previously, in fact.--Milowent (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, and I think that would still only justify stubbing the article. (Don't get me wrong, I still !vote delete.)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "There are hundreds of less significant painters in Wiki." Are there really, though? We actually don't know anything whatsoever about her art—except that it's allegedly cubist. It's like all the other information about her (of which we have almost none): unverifiable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The significance of every Cubist painter, moreover Croatian and with a film about, is higher than of 10 contemporary "genius" who wrote articles about themselves :( I've not seen her art but I know Cubism enoght to imagine what it was. --Ozolina (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So cubist painters are ipso facto notable?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think yes, evere Cubist is a part of that great epoch in arts. --Ozolina (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per WP:BLP. per WP:GNG. It is difficult at this moment to obtain verif. RS because most results that come up are times of when the documentary of her will be aired. However, that very fact is enough for me; numerous respectable tv stations are airing the documentary listed in the sources. The documentary is significant in-depth coverage on her and her alone, and all the tv stations constitute numerous sources. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What does BLP have to do with anything? She died in 1965—and saying it's hard to verify any of the information in the article is not a very good reason to !vote keep. Also, from what I can tell of the half-hour show about her (the "documentary"), it seems to use her as a hook to talk about, well, the actually famous artists she was friends with, like Mestrovic.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I apologize, I look like an idiot now. What I meant was weak keep per WP:GNG. The reason I voted keep was not because it is hard to verify information, it was because the magnitude of tv stations airing the documentary constitutes multiple reliable sources, and a documentary solely on the article subject sure indicates significant coverage, no? Also, Glenfarcias, you must be an expert in the languages in question and must have actually reviewed the documentary since you made a statement about the film "being a hook to talk about other famous artists". Nonetheless, it would be simply unfair to ignore the fact that the film's title actually is the article subject's name... Turqoise127 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jackson State University Upset the Texas Longhorns in the university men's sprint medely relay. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article had been {{prod}}'ed per WP:NOTNEWS, but an IP editor (possible the original author not logged in) expressed an opinion of notability, so PROD removed and brought to AFD. While the event may be notable, it does not stand as a standalone article, and there is not an article of sufficient detail about either team's history to merit the inclusion of an event that is over 20 years old. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I considered that option before the nomination, but that article does not seem sufficiently detailed to support a single fact from 20 years ago. The fact would appear wildly out of context from the rest of the article. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Does not cite a reliable source: The article only cites one essay on Beerware which is far from enough for the entire article. (See Knowledge:Reliable sources)
  2. Notability not established: The article does not prove its notability by providing evidences of significant coverage in reliable source. (See General notability guideline)
  3. Written like personal reflections of the author: The article attempts to categorize several methods of software distribution by providing a distorted description of them that contradicts with their description in their own respective article. For example, it describes Careware similar to Donationware, while changes the definition of Donationware to that of a more restrictive one. Most glaring of all, it attempts to fit Abandonware into category. (See Knowledge:Neutral point of view, Knowledge:No original research and Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought) Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - the above arguments seem to be based primarily on whether or not the term "otherware" itself is in wide use. That is a valid question, certainly, but it isn't the only question that needs to be asked. More importantly, is the concept of software licensed licensed in a "non-standard" way as a whole notable? The answer to that question is certainly "yes", as it is a wide spread phenomenon. If the word "otherware" is problematic, the article can be changed to "Alternate software licensing schemes" or some such, but the concept deserves an entry one way or another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The first "-ware" in the list is "Abandonware", and it is not a license. We have other articles on software licenses. This article is an original attempt to clasify the "-wares" based on terminology rather than some intrinsic aspects. Pcap ping 03:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

      • Precisely. Besides, Abandonware is not the only problematic. Careware, greenware and donationware (per their own articles) are not licenses either. They cannot be enforced.

        In addition, do not forget the other two problems of the article which are valid criteria for deletion.

        Fleet Command (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Per FleetCommand, this article really is about a name for a category of software, which is at most very indirectly related to license terms. Abandonware has many citations in the article showing that the term actually is in widespread use, and hence deserves an article. In contrast "Otherware" seems to be a coinage of the article creator, or at most something with rare 3rd party use. Moreover, I think it would not be absurd to call the Abandonware article something like "Unmaintained software", that might only discuss the term Abandonware in the body (mind you, I don't think that's a good idea, but at least the description might be a coherent category). For this article, the only descriptive title would be something utterly unencyclopedic like "Software whose availability status doesn't match well-known categories". "Other" rarely, if ever, forms a meaningful conceptual category for an article. LotLE×talk 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. I'm not seeing sufficient referencing for this subject to be confirmed as notable. It might make more sense to talk about unusual or unique software licensing at Software license. If the article is to be about the term, then we need to show that the term is in widespread use, which we don't - and if the article is to be about the alternative licenses, then we can discuss those at Software license or in the articles for the respective softwares. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's an unsourced article, written by User:Huertacomics, about a new comic book character created by Angel Huerta. My searches on "Dragón Negro" "Angel Huerta" plus "Dragón Negro" "Angel Huerta" gives 23 GHits. There's a review on the blog comikaze.blogspot.com, and not much else I can find; certainly nothing in reliable sources. Looking for information on "Huma Comics" doesn't get me any farther.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This is largely a recreation of Local Baron, but an admin thought that it should not have been deleted in the first place (no WP:DRV though). My original concerns remain largely the same: Even though this term has been used in Romanian politics for some years, I couldn't find a reliable source to define it. Now, the term baron (without "local") is defined in a 2007 Romanian slang dictionary to mean "member of the Social-Democrat Party that autocratically dominates the economical or political life of a city or county". But many journalists use it outside this context, so big YMMV if an article can be written without WP:SYNT at this time. I should add that even the Romanian Knowledge doesn't have an entry on this topic (it should be at ro:Baron local)

This article is a libel magnet too. It's not too hard to find one Romanian editorialist or another call one politician or another "local baron", but as far as I can tell what they mean by that varies from one writer to another... Romanian politicians also call each other "lying pigs" and similar epithets. Are we going to have an article on lying pigs too, and list everyone that's been called that in it? I see that Obama has been called that too. LOL.

Parenthetical remark now that the new article has been focused solely on Romania: After looking through some sources are not about Romania, it's clear that "local baron" is a juxtaposition of words common in English and used in many contexts outside Romanian politics. E.g. it's used to refer to mayors in Western Europe or Asia. The contemporary Romanian application does not appear unusual, not even in its metaphoric aspect. Pcap ping 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I used 'Romanian local baron', instead of just 'local baron'. And it's more than a mass media invention, it's an accurate description of the side effects of the postcommunist transition in Romania and probably other Eastern European countries. So the Romanian local baron is quite different from the Nigerian local baron. And you have to contend that the word 'baron' is not used in its original meaning, since noble titles have long ago dissapeared from Romania. I was going to include a small theoretical framework, mainly Szeleny's 'Capitalism without Capitalists' to explain the emergence of the new power elite. And yes, it can be a libel magnet as long as it only talks about PSD barons or PD-L barons, but with concrete examples it can gain a decent shape. Hitler may not have considered himself a dictator, but that doesn't mean he wasn't one. I know that the few I have written doesn't qualify as an encyclopedia article, so maybe I'll try to elaborate before posting it again. But I think there must be such an article for the foreign crowd. I mean, there are articles for 'jumping the shark', 'fat cat', 'revolving door' and other media jargon, and they were very useful to me. So if a foreigner hears of this term he may want to learn more. That's why the article needs to be a synthesis of the main characteristics of the local baron (the ideal type), and the main antidemocratic actions one is alleged to take, without insisting on the names. Currently the term appears on a number of individual political figures' Knowledge pages (Liviu Dragnea, Relu Fenechiu), so it could be linked. (Nomoteticus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoteticus (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Insofar we don't have much if any sources that discuss the term, as opposed to just fling it at political opponents. Hence the problems with this article. Since you are sociology student, I'd like to point out that Knowledge is not a venue for publishing original research. We already have articles on nouveau riche and the like. Connecting the dots as you did above to advance a (sociological) theory is generally forbidden, unless some reliable source does it, and we just cite it. Pcap ping 20:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably the best comparison here is Fat cat (term). That article is mostly about the (very long) history of the term, which is itself discussed in secondary sources, and not just a compilation of people having been called "fat cat" at one point or another. In fact, there's almost none of that kind of info in the 'fat cat' article. Unfortunately in the 'Romanian local barons' article we have an unsourced paragraph on the origins and meaning of the term, and a sourced list of recent uses. Rather non-encyclopedic. Pcap ping 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is more like the (now deleted) article on curmudgeon, which had the definition of the term followed by a list of people called that. The definition of "Romanian local baron" is itself somewhat hard to pin down, but assuming you could do that, Wiktionary is a more appropriate place. Pcap ping 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete primarily per eternal BLP concerns. Even with no refs to individuals, the article has a tinge of SYNTH and NPOV that I consider problematic. Exemplary AfD rationale, reasoned, in-depth, perspective ... Power.corrupts (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

non notable organization, attempting to ride it's creators notable coattails. Speedy removed by IP. WuhWuzDat 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Merge discussion can be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0  03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. This is an unreleased album without WP:Reliable sources to establish its notability as an unreleased album. Three of the four sources in the article are self-promotion: The artist's list of possible guest artists , all but one unconfirmed, his estimate that the album was "like 65 percent, maybe 70 percent done" a year after it was to have been released, and a "synergy" statement by the label that signed him 15 months ago . There are no sources to indicate independent interest in this album; one has expressed doubt that the album will ever be completed . Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD was declined (deprod - there is already sufficient coverage of this album despite it not being released yet), but neither "sufficient" nor "yet" seem justified by the sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep/Merge to Lil Jon. You need to look at all of the coverage that's out there, not just what's in the article. This album has been a long time coming, and has been the subject of regular news items for a long time. Yes, it hasn't been released, and yes it's a rap album, but that doesn't automatically mean that it needs to be deleted. If you search in Google news you'll find lots of coverage including this from MTV from 2006, and this from 2008. Looking solely at 2009, Rolling Stone has this from March last year, and this from October with considerable detail of the tracks and guest artists. There's this from the New Times, this from ABC, this from eTaiwan News, this from the Miami Herald. Rap albums often take years to appear, with many delays, and personally I would keep all content about an album like this in a section in the artist's article until a tracklisting and release date is confirmed, so a Merge would be preferred. Deletion doesn't give us the option of merging it, and given that the artist is notable, I don't see deleting content basically describing what he's been doing for the past few years (at least it could substantially do that given the sources available) as a positive move. So in summary, to address the concerns of the nominator, it does have reliable sources to establish its notability and independent interest, and many of the tracks and guests are confirmed and can be sourced. Somehow I suspect this would have a much better chance if it was a rock album that had been delayed for years, but such is Knowledge.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
From your 10 September 2009 Rolling Stone reference: "Although Jon told Billboard in 2007 that Crunk Rock would be a half-rock/half-hip-hop hybrid of “real rock guitars” and his trademark bounce, Jon now predicts a far more eclectic album that flirts with house music, pop and R&B." It appears then that the article doesn't even have a correct track listing, let alone a reliable source for it, and violates WP:CRYSTAL as speculation about "songs that might be on the album". Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label," and "sometime next year" is not a release date. I'll read through your sources, but what I found was "where is he now" with occasional editorial smirking. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Selectively quoting guidelines to try to get something deleted is never helpful here. You should perhaps read the section "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it", and the section you did quote is preceded in the guideline by "generally". We're judging the subject here, i.e. the album, not the article that we currently have about it, which is clearly in need of expansion and cleanup. Why do you not see a merge of the sourceable content to the Lil Jon article as an option? There's plenty that can be said about the album, and I said above, this would be worthwhile as an expanded section in the artist article. More examples of the coverage that's out there: MTV, HipHopDX, Gigwise, SixShot, HipHopDX, Fox news, More from Fox News, DigitalSpy, Rap2K, Rap2K. --Michig (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Instead of trotting out a laundry list of "sources," choose a couple of them and say why they're relevant. A Google search for "crunk rock"+"damian grass" returns 445 copies of that same article, including the two that you represented as independent sources. I've warned you before about citing sources that you haven't read yourself. I've addressed your first melange in detail; before you ask anyone to read another, take the time to read it yourself and explain why it is relevant. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
They're all relevent as they demonstrate that the album has received a wealth of independent coverage in reliable sources. You haven't warned me about citing sources that I haven't read myself - if I remember correctly the issue was that you were discounting sources that you hadn't read yourself, as anyone following your link can see.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the 2009 sources you cited above, Lil John was shooting a video on September 9 for a November 24 album release. (Miami Herald ) November 24 was the same release date he gave to Rolling Stone when he plugged the album in September. As late as October 23 though he was still only "like 80 percent done." (AP wire, which you represented as two different sources ) Of course, the album wasn't released in November. Can you cite a reference explaining why?
No, it's obviously been delayed again. It's still an unreleased album, and nobody is claiming otherwise.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In the May 2006 MTV interview he was plugging this album for its first release date. In the March 2008 MTV article wasn't so much about this album but about where all his time had gone since the first release date. The March 2009 Rolling Stone article covered two free mixtapes he'd released, not "real" releases but " a decent segue aesthetically for that Crunk Rock album that’s supposed to come out at some point this year," and sniggered a bit at Lil John reprising Wayne's World, but didn't discuss this album. None of these help establish the track list or release date, and so are irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, it's an unreleased album. It doesn't have a release date, as it hasn't been released yet.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If it doesn't have a confirmed release date, then it fails WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but that isn't what WP:NALBUMS says.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NALBUMS: "enerally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." I don't deal in opinion, I trade in fact. Yappy2bhere (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as the article states: "numerous release dates have been given for three years but none have come to fruition." When the album is released we can create an article at that time. Until then, we are just gazing into a crystal ball. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Using the available sources to cover the facts about the album as they have emerged over the years isn't gazing into a crystal ball. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have expanded the article with the available sources, Hopefully it is now clear that there is plenty of valid content regarding this album, and that this belongs either in the article under discussion or in the Lil Jon article.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Fast becoming a Chinese Democracy-style fiasco, but widely reported upon and clearly of encyclopedic value even if never released. Chubbles (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica would agree. Is it the unreleased album that's notable, or the one-man band who's flogging it? If it's the man, vote to merge, not to keep. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to keep Britannica's biases about what is culturally valuable. Thankfully, we often don't, though hip-hop is usually one exception. The album (or concept, perhaps more properly at this stage) itself is far and away a standalone item worthy of note. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The genre of the album is irrelevant to this discussion. You say that the album is "widely reported upon", but in truth it's the artist Lil Jon that's the subject of these stories, and Lil Jon uses them as an opportunity to flog a failed project. Who wouldn't, but that doesn't make the project notable or of encyclopedic value in its own right. This vaporous album is merely Lil Jon trivia which belongs, if anywhere, in Lil Jon's biography as the coda to his career. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep thanks to Michig's expansion. Per WP:NALBUMS, unreleased albums are in general not notable. However, also per WP:ALBUMS, "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it" (Chinese Democracy being one of these exceptions). I believe there's enough sourced material here to support an independent article. At worst, I'd support it being merged into Lil Jon, though I don't consider that the best option because it would verge on dominating Lil Jon's article (WP:WEIGHT).  Gongshow  21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find independent mention of this term. If anyone can find a source, I'm not opposed to merging it into the World of Warcraft article, but I can't find one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No wonder I didn't see it. Video Games is a separate location, way over there. Now fixed and listed properly. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even see any in-universe sourcing for this term. Google doesn't even bring up any forum type sourcing. The only thing that comes up is the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and Oppose merge. There is nothing to merge, the content is trivial, and there could easily be debate about the spelling on the term anyway. We don't collect trivia anywhere, so there is no target to redirect to either. --Taelus (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Cleave it like we're Saurfang (Delete)- Would have thought something like this would've been speediable. I guess this doesn't fall under any speedy criteria? Either way, there's nothing redeemable about the article, all one sentence of it. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think so- It doesn't fit any of the A7 categories, I can tell what it's about, so neither A1 or G1 fit. I thought about speedy before sending this here, but nothing fit close enough. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a hoax, as there is some fact to the claim, nor hasten to assume it is vandalism. It could have been a good faith contribution by someone who simply was previously unaware of the notability policy. --Taelus (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
With zero Google hits for this term and this editor's vandalism record as well as his deleted articles I think AGFing is not a real option. Have you checked the facts I just mentioned? Dr.K.  02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is unlikely to have google hits because it is a spoken line in the game which has not to this date been transcribed, thus this could easily be an incorrect spelling. It lacks notability sure, but it is not really a hoax because the word could be spelt like this, and when spoken aloud sounds like it does in-game. But this is deviating from the point, it will be deleted anyway, but is most likely ineligible for speedy. --Taelus (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the "best" hoaxes or vandalism are the plausible sounding ones. Check the deletion history of inpiscinate. Dr.K.  14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
IMHO i'm not sure it's worth the effort to debate hoax or not. Hoax could be argued both ways. On the other hand I don't see how a close under SNOW could be contested. If someone uninvolved would pull the triger on a snow close we can all carry on with other matters.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not contest snow. It's winter after all ;) Dr.K.  15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:NN product. Article failed {{prod}} after COI author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no substantive content or potential for useful expansion beyond existing stub Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Point of view and essay-like attributes can be fixed, and the discussion has shown that the topic is moderately notable. Regards, Arbitrarily0  03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Rambling essay with dicey citations. PhGustaf (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well sourced? Almost the entire article is sourced to a single book, repeating the claims and opinions of that author as fact. What little else is referenced is cited to a single editorial or something called hnn.us --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't looked at the quality of the sources myself yet, though I can tell the article needs some improvement. It appears the article was created after it was rejected from inclusion on The New York Times article, see Talk:The_New_York_Times#new_section_on_nytimes_and_holocaust. I deprodded this article because it seemed notable enough to merit a discussion.--Milowent (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important subject about the reactions of US mass media to Holocaust.User:Lucifero4
  • Strong Delete. As currently written, it's just an essay (and not a very good one at that). It's plagued with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems (as well as clear ax-to-grind WP:NPOV issues) but it's difficult to imagine how this could be corrected through editing. If it were boiled down to the notable and the reliably sourced, it would just be a stub of an article, a paragraph or two in length. Really, the entire article seems to be a summary of a single source, the book by Leff (which also accounts for almost all of the cites in the article). The claims and opinions of that author are repeated as fact, producing ridiculously non-NPOV language like "...Sulzeberger’s firmly held personal beliefs that it was wrong to ever treat Jews as a people" or "The paper of record deliberately hid the Holocaust from the American people." Since this article exists to simply repeat the thesis of a single book (with a little original research thrown in as well) it's not possible for mere editing to make it compliant with Knowledge policies.--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I will give improvement a try. There are sources far beyond what is currently cited in the article.--Milowent (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The references strongly indicate that this is a notable subject. I do not think it is correct to say that the entire article is sourced to the one book; but the book is over-represented in the article. The article needs some work, but that's no reason to delete it.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete this is effectively a topic made up one day by a wikipedia editor. It is not treated in any depth by any reliable sources as a topic of its own. Allowing this kind of amateur scholarship to be invented here (and a bad job of it, I agree with loonymonkey) is a constant failing of wikipedia. To take one slanted book and paint the entire sulzeberger family as raging anti-semites who deliberately hid the reality of the holocaust is the sort of rank distortion of the historical record that occurs whenever this kind of invention/OR is allowed to pass.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me -- the subject of US Press coverage of the holocaust is covered broadly, just look around. The article needs work, no question, but if you look for press articles about this subject, they are legion.--Milowent (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a broader (better written, better sourced, more neutral) article about US press coverage would be notable. But this article is focused exclusively on one news outlet. Actually, it doesn't even really focus on the Times so much as Sulzeberger personally. It's just one long attack rant against him, based on opinion ("Sulzeberger hated being labeled as Jewish, so much that he was willing to distort New York Time coverage in order to fight recognition of Jewish existence as a people in Hitler’s Europe.") If he were still alive, this would have been speedily deleted some time ago as a WP:BLP violation. So why should we lower our standards just because he's dead? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There have been many changes to the article over the last two days, so I hope that voters will take another look. Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Bali Ultimate has put a lot of effort into removing the most obvious POV and synthesis, but it's still too big an article about too little. Maybe the matter is worth a section in Criticism of The New York Times, though. It's certainly less important to understanding the NYT than the Judith Miller story or other scandals. PhGustaf (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this controversy is "certainly less important", but I agree that Criticism of The New York Times would be another potential landing place for this content.--Milowent (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim_H._Clary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

Once again, with all due respect, Knowledge is not a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL), and while the subjects deeds are heroic, it has been established that the Silver Star does not meet notability requirements for inclusion in Knowledge WP:N, WP:BIO, & WP:MILITARY. Being one of thousands of combatants in a battle featured in a novel does not make an individual notable, or we would have articles on every member of the invasions on D-Day. While this man was certainly a great American, and my sincere condolances to his family and his community for their recent loss, this gentleman does not meet already established standards for inclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep -- There are six medals, all of which have Knowledge categories.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Major Clary's highest award is the Silver Star, which is third-tier for valor, and has been established as not conferring notability. While I have no doubt he was a great American he does not meet Knowledge notability guidelines. Rapier1 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and previous deletions of second and third-tier gallantry awards. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Notice:Before the deletion, the article drew nearly 600 hits. There is a market for heroism.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Notice: The heroism market does not infer notability in accordance with WP policy. Billy, I've had many many discussions with you concerning inclusion of non-notable or unreferenced materials. This is an encyclopedia, not your memorial wall. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete, the keep arguments are mostly by assertion, reference to other articles or akin to its useful. Spartaz 10:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Original research, synthesis, lack of (reliable) references. The scope of the article is ill-defined to the point that the whole exercise becomes completely arbitrary. It does not know what an empire actually is, nor how its time span can be measured in an objective and comparable way.

To name but a few problems: Haiti, the Venetian Republic and the Delian League (Athens) and Ireland are classified indiscriminately as empires. The various Iranian dynasties (Achaemenians, Sassanids, Parthians, etc.) are only listed separately, whereas China is listed both as one entity and separately as different dynasties. For Rome there are different criterias applied. That the Holy Roman Empire and Russia (Third Rome) were widely considered as continuation of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire is also overlooked. And so forth. Pharaonic Egypt may be the longest running empire, certainly state, but only selected periods of its history are included. What encyclopedic value can the reader expect from a list which applies almost as many different criterias as individual entries? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Absolute OR. No way to find commom criteria for classification. This types of list, in fact, seem to work as kind of contest between editors who get carried away with an identity agenda (sort of "my empire is/was bigger/stronger/longer than yours...!"). The Ogre (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete What Ogre said. There's no way to compile such a list with verifiable, consensus information. There is the can of worms question of what constitutes "empire," and the can of worms question of what constitutes the -end- of an empire. Even the Roman Empire, arguably the most famous of all empires, suffers from significant debate in terms of when it actually "ended," and what that even means. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing mine to weak delete after reading the previous AFD and its discussion of the similar List of empires article. If that article is considered okay for inclusion, then half of my above argument goes away, leaving only the question concerning how one legitimately establishes the duration of an empire. I would argue in favor of incorporating this list into the List of empires article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, WP:ILIKEIT, and its WP:INTERESTING, but it's all original research, so there's no standard that it lives up to and it's up to the latest editor to define an empire. By definition, an "empire" is ruled by an "emperor", so I get it that Bokassa the First's "Central African Empire" is on the list, but "The Third Reich"-- WTF? I guess the Thirdreichian Emperor was Adolf the First. Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. OR and listcrufty. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete fascinating but ultimately cannot be sustained here. an individual writer may compare various govts for their length of rule, and establish their own definition of what constitutes an empire and what determines the start and end dates. but since there is (and can be) no consensus for such a broad idea, this list is inherently original research, synthesis, and has undefinable inclusion criteria. IF WE FIND A BOOK THAT COVERS THIS, ie, a major work by a historian comparing in this manner, we could summarize the book. if there are more than one, we could write an article comparing them, IF OTHERS had compared them. minor notes: listing by length is inherently OR, as its hard to give precise dates. name of article doesnt even match list. list of longest cannot include empires lasting 1 year!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no IF about it. There are multiple books which cover historical empires as a general topic - see Empires: the logic of world domination from ancient Rome to the United States or Empires, for example. All we have to do is summarise and cite the work of these various scholars and we're good. Issues of definition and measurement are unimportant because all topics have difficulties of this kind - see List of rivers by length, for example. As usual, it's just a matter of doing some sourcing and then discussing the results. Deletion is quite unhelpful in this and there seems to have been no attempt to engage with the topic per our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The comparison does not cut. "River", unlike "empire" is a clearly definable subject, and determing length can be done much more objectively than determining duration. The proof is in the pudding. List of rivers by length appears well-sorted, whereas this list has not seen any improvements since the first AfD one year ago. And I venture to say, it won't for another year, given its complete lack of interest of WP editors to support their entries by references. Better to delete the 'list' altogether and give someone else the opportunity to start all over again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You do not seem to appreciate the difficulty of rivers. As Heraclitus explained, "you can never step into the same river twice" - they are constantly changing. Their structure is fractal and so, even if you take a snapshot, their length depends upon the size of your measuring rod. And then there's the issue of the tributaries, the exact position of the mouth and so on. Empires seem comparatively simple because the reigns of the emperors are well-documented. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does it even need to exist when List of empires exists? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no button to press on Knowledge that changes an alphabetical list, to a chronological one. When you want to see it listed chronologically, you need to have a separate article. Knowledge never runs out of space, so no reason not to have this here, if its useful to some people. Dream Focus 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The only people it is useful for are the editors that like constructing such lists and placing them on Knowledge. As noted below, your objection about buttons couldn't be more misplaced. There is a button you can press to do exactly what you say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, List of empires is a sortable table, and you actually can press a button (or click on a column) to see it listed chronologically. Plus, it's a more reliable article than this one. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, cool. Both list have things which the other does not though. I guess some didn't consider certain empires to be important. And duration isn't listed at the other category, so some useful information is still here. Not sure how those at the other article would feel about a merge. Dream Focus 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not as difficult as it might seem. It's just a matter of adding a column to the table to show duration, which I agree is an important piece of information. Here's how it would look: . I only did the "A"'s and then reverted it back to the old form, but it was actually fairly easy-- you take the difference between the two numbers (i.e., 2010-1776 would be "334") and then make sure to put two uprights afterward-- 334|| in this example. Remember, nobody "owns" a Knowledge article, and a lot of people have edited that one so far. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
List of empires is a chronological list (if you choose to sort by start/end date). This is a filtered list purely relating to the duration of the empire, and who is to say what the cutoff is between a "long lasting" and a "not long lasting" empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How is this original research? Do you mean that someone counted the number of years themselves? There are ample historical sources for when an empire started and ended. It isn't original research to state how many years they existed. Dream Focus 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, there aren't these sources because empire is a) a Latin term which strictly only applies to Western political entities following in the footsteps of the Imperium Romanum. For all the others it is an anachronism, as they did not even know the term, but used terms such Middle Kingdom, Caliphate, Khanate, Sultanate etc. for self-reference.
It is, moreover, b) an inherently vague term. Vagueness means that, just as you cannot tell how many grains of sand constitute a heap of sand, you won't never be able to tell at what exact date an empire started and ended. Did Alexander's empire began after he won his first, second or third victory against the Persians? Or only after the Persian king Dareios was killed or perhaps only after Alexander returned to Babylon ending his conquest? And even if you can establish a definite beginning and end, you are obliged to follow this through for all the other empires for reasons of consistency. But then you will quickly find out that the established common criteria makes little sense for the history of other empires.
You can only compare like with like, but this list utterly fails to pass even simple consistency tests for both its main criteria, "empire" and its "duration". It is moreover the kind of nationalistic chest-beating list which quickly becomes the focus of identity agenda posters and is therefore rightly strongly discouraged at other language Wikipedias. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You can easily find history books and encyclopedias among other sources, which refer to those on the list as empires, and establish when they started and ended. I don't think any nationalist chest-beating guy off in the city of Rome is going to be trying to make his empire seem more important by changing a number on a list somewhere. And on what specific Wikipedias is this strongly discouraged at? Can you link to even one example of this? Dream Focus 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I am afraid I can't link to other language articles when they do not exist. And you still seem not to understand the main point: Obviously, there are books which refer to empires and possibly also give some precise dates, but throwing these widely scattered sources altogether into one article is pure synthesis because they do not remotely share a common criteria. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Not so! The unique value of this article as opposed to List of empires is that it is sorted by duration. There is no way to sort List of empires by duration, and while that may seem no big deal to you, it's a very big deal if that's what you need (and if, lacking this article, you have to actually more-or-less create it anew out of the data in List of empires). And no, the fancy new sort-buttons at the top of each column do not achieve what I'm talking about. BenRussell (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep (albeit, to be fair, the "strong" part is because I spent four hours trying to help clean this article up one night recently). I ABSOLUTELY would not suggest that this article is great: there is a lot wrong with it, and it was worse when I found it. However, I stumbled on it in doing some research in Knowledge and, lo and behold, it contained more than a few answers I needed. It was helpful. It was NOT "original research" but a list of facts (albeit one in need of serious editing and a more objective standard), facts that are frequently needed in certain fields (and, I suspect, especially for certain students). And more to the point, it does NOT violate WP:SYN (which prohibits synthesizing materials "to advance a position"), nor is it "original research" (unless each and every list in Knowledge is also). Shall we next do away with the list of Heisman Trophy winners, the list of Stargate SG-1 episodes (which actually IS filled with original research, since the editors added their own plot descriptions literally minutes after watching each new episode)? No, we won't, because those articles are popular. And that's your real standard here: none of you would dare go after an article that was frequented by large numbers of people. This article is useful to historians and history students and a handful of political researchers, so you're all for dumping it.
Let's keep this article and improve it. I literally took four hours and tried to improve it -- after stumbling on it randomly and finding it very useful for a specific project, where no other resource was answering my question. I'll certainly pledge to help work on the article more if you guys won't delete it. I think it can become every bit as good -- and a whole lot more encyclopedia-worthy -- than "List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members" and "List of English football transfers 2009". Don't you? BenRussell (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for responding to myself, but I just looked through the "See Also" section in List of Empires. Folks, when I was a history student, this would have been a little bit of heaven. Some of the articles -- this one definitely included -- need all sorts of citations that are currently lacking; however, by the standards being proposed to delete this article, you'd need to delete all of those too. And none of them should go! I don't mean to belabor the point about "popular" lists like "List of Harcore Punk Bands", but isn't the list we're debating EXACTLY what we'd want Knowledge to be: a treasure trove of real information about things that truly matter? Can't you just see some sixth grade social studies student stumbling across this, going "Wow, that's cool!", and embarking on a path that makes him the next Paul Johnson or David Stevenson? I certainly can. Let's get this article up to standard. But let's not kill it. This sort of gem (albeit in the rough) is exactly why a lot of us love Knowledge: you can find anything. And when the "anything" is real stuff and not pop culture gibberish, so much the better. BenRussell (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ogre's comments. Keep this one and we'll be seeing RFCs and edit wars over who's countries historical empire was better etc... Even when sources meet WP:RS they rarely agree with one another. Nefariousski (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: At the risk of getting repetitive, the complete lack of agreement among scholars is also my main criticism. Such a list will only ever reflect which reference the latest editor thought worthwhile to keep and which better to ignore. And these are, as Ogre already had it, likely the identity agenda editors who are willing to devote the most energy and time in such affairs. In other words: Tell me which empire is on top of the list, and I tell you who made the last edit. Not the path the Knowledge project should follow. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was unanimous delete - Altenmann >t 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism. An article on the same topic was previously deleted at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Judicial shamanism. It was not a notable concept then, and nothing has changed since. The only mentions of the phrase 'judicial shamanism' that I can find are in the work of the person who came up with it, Stanislovas Tomas; it does not seem to be mentioned in any independent sources whatsoever. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

No RS for this term other than a blog and humor column. Does not assert notability for inclusion. Should have been CSD'ed or Prod'ed but prod tag was deleted already. Yossiea 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Is a humor column not an independent, third-party substantiation for inclusion as a referencing entity -- must I quote the New England Journal of Medicine? The the PROD was merely complaining that this 'term' is better suited for a dictionary, which I contested and deleted according to its own instructions. DRosenbach 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- as per WP:SNOW, let's delete this already :) DRosenbach 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I am in Missoula, MT and my Jewish friends were using this term to talk about someone's mom, so I assume that this was used on some TV show somewhere that they watch. I ended up here to figure out what it actually meant and noticed a afd tag. From a simple google search, it seems to have widespread use among many blogs. Also apparently people ask for them on craigslist. While there might not be RS now, I assume there will be pretty quick OneofLittleHarmony (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    ...If that's the case, then the article is premature and can be rewritten when reliable sources exist. We don't speculate as to whether a term will or will not be notable - we wait until it is notable and write an article then. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    .... So from what my friends said it was on Shalom TV, but that's all they could tell me. They thought it was funny. I googled the term and Shalom TV but couldn't find any references. Changed to weak delete, (instead of keep). 66.62.194.224 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • delete No reliable sources at present. Possibly userfy to someone's userspace if they want to work on it and try to track down more sources? At present, nothing in the article meets WP:RS. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, a bit reluctantly. I don't see this as a candidate for speedy, and not a G10--it doesn't attack any identifiable person, it's a bona fide frum-community slang term, and the article here certainly appears to have been written in good faith. Unfortunately it's difficult to find any Knowledge-approved reliable sources at all for doings in that community, much less one that targets the etymology of this particular neologism. Having just waded through pages of blog citations for "hot chanie" (or "chani"), I didn't find much that could be sold as RS around here. The closest might be this mention at Jewcy.com referring to the "the Hot Chani phenomena sweeping through religious neighborhoods in the New York metro area"--but this blog post seems unlikely to meet the test.) Someday, maybe someone will write a WP:RS-qualified "Guide to Orthodox Jewish Slang in America", and then that source could be used to make a nice little Knowledge article on the subject, but as far as I could find that time has not arrived.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Further sourcing provided; the one from MyJewishLearning.com should be proper enough. DRosenbach 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band. Article is by someone with a close association with the group. No charted songs, no recognized record label. Handful of passing mentions by websites and blogs, only one of which could even be considered a reliable source. Original author repeatedly removed the speedy delete tag and was warned multiple times. Speedy was eventually declined (a decision I strongly disagree with). Nothing in this article indicates that this group meets the criteria of WP:BAND. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Further info against deletion.

Wiki policy 6.

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nick Marsh was lead singer of Flesh For Lulu which is listed on Wiki.

Barney Hollington is listed with Miranda Sex Garden which again has an entry on wiki

Both must be sufficiently notable if they already have wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmnixon (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Uvmnixon (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(That is, point 6 here). The guideline says that a band containing two independently notable members is notable, and a person in two independently notable bands is notable. But what you're presenting is a band containing two members, each of whom was in a different (assertedly) notable band but is not notable themselves. Because this is two stages removed it's not covered by the guideline you cite - do you agree?
Also, it's dangerous to conclude that something "must be sufficiently notable if already wikipedia entries". After all, if articles on non-notable topics were never created we wouldn't have this sort of discussion in the first place! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Further info against deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmnixon (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to all of the above:-

1) I am not a friend, or connected with the band, merely a fan and contributor to their forum on their website.

2) This discussion(dispute) seems to have started the minute I inadvertently deleted a "marked for deletion" marker. This was my first article, I was unaware that a couple of heiroglyphics in brackets amounted to a marker. In fact it took me three hours before I found out that in order to stop things being boxed you had to take out indenting.

3)The disagreement with my point 6 of wiki's notability criteria is semantics. Just because the notable article relates to a band does not make its' members not notable. Nick Marsh was lead singer of Flesh for Lulu, Barney Hollington was in Miranda Sex Garden, and founding member Jim Jones was in Thee Hypnotics. Perhaps someone can explain why the first three are notable yet the Urban Voodoo Machine which contains members of the first three is not. Also if we use this criteria quite strictly, then there are numerous bands that have wiki entries that are not eligible. Are they all going to then be deleted? Furthermore Occasional Members, includes Spider Stacy from The Pogues and Son of Dave, both of whom played on the Urban Voodoo Machine album, and both have their own individual wikipedia entries.

4)Point 11 in wiki's criteria "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." The Urban Voodoo Machine have had two singles on the playlist for BBC Radio 6. Here's the links:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l1qw7 http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/tom_robinson/tracklisting.shtml?y=2009&d=20090717

5)Knowledge's own guidelines for deletion state:- "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"

Finally, if all this placed together is insufficient for a decision to be made to keep this article with or without revisions that you feel appropriate, then please could you direct me to links whereby I can formalise this dispute and make a formal complaint, as I feel that this is unnecessarily heavy handed. Uvmnixon (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the place for formal discussion of the dispute. There is no "formal complaint" process aside from deletion review, but when an author is simply restating their case already made in an AfD discussion, DRV's are usually rejected out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Uvmnixon, if you're finding it necessary to wikilawyer the WP:BAND criteria just to see if you can make the subject satisfy a single criterion, that in itself may be a sign that the subject is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article -- at least not yet. Please consider having a look at the General notability guideline (similar to WP:BAND criterion 1), which offers the most succinct explanation of what constitutes notability. If you can provide evidence of, as WP:GNG puts it, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," please add the appropriate references to the article and then post a comment on this discussion page saying you've done so. That would probably put an end to the discussion here, and would be a more effective way of establishing notability than getting hung up on arguments about how many band members can dance on the head of a pin. --Rrburke 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This band does not contain two or more independently notable musicians. Rather, if this article is kept, then those musicians who were in other notable bands might be notable under WP:MUSICBIO #6. You can't bootstrap your way in like that. By the way, WP:BAND does not say that any band with two notable musicians is notable, only that such a band "may be notable." In light of the lack of reliable coverage, buzz, charting, coverage of their tour, etc., even then this band's claim to notability would be highly doubtful. Without additional coverage—and most of the references the article provides don't even mention the band—I don't believe this band has "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the . . . ensemble itself and reliable."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Cautious keep It states in the article that they have performed internationally, which meets half the requirements of WP:BAND number 4. If there is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source, then it does make the band notable. Stephen! 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen Herewith a link to the review by The Washington Post review of the band's US tour with the Pogues. Is the Washington Post considered a reliable source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/profile/the-urban-voodoo-machine,1147962/critic-review.html

This isn't just a review, it is The Editor's Pick!

Uvmnixon (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to get that added as a reference onto the article. Also, it would be helpful if you can get the references done in the same manner as other articles. WP:YFA describes a simple method of doing it. A more thorough method is described at WP:CITE
Comment. In my opinion, reviews in a paper's local entertainment calendar don't constitute "significant coverage". Just as a random example, here is the Post's review (also by Fritz Hahn, oddly enough) of Ceiba, a bar/restaurant on 14th St. It's more than five times as long as the Urban voodoo machine review. Ceiba doesn't have a Knowledge article either. --Rrburke 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few more references to back up sources. My arguments remain as follows:-

Three band members were formerly in notable groups.

Two occasional members are notable in themselves. Whilst they are occasional members, they are still contributory members, and played both on the latest album and on recent tour dates and have done for some time.

They have received positive reviews in both National and International press and on like websites. (Rrburke's point about "significant" is misleading WP:Band point 4 states "non-trivial" coverage, which does not amount to the same thing as "significant". In my view non-trivial refers to something as more than a passing mention.

Both digital download singles have been playlisted by several DJs on Radio 6 which is run by The British Broadcasting Corporation.

Further to this I will state that I am disappointed that with the exception of Stephen, the criticism seems to be disparaging rather than constructive. Surely all criticism should be above all, fair, positive and constructive, and helpful, otherwise this does Knowledge itself a disservice?Uvmnixon (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Your characterization of those who disagree with you as "disparaging" 1) is incorrect, and 2) will do you no good in trying to persuade others to your view. If such actions disappoint you, then maybe Knowledge is nt the best venue for your work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not post comments such as my view of certain editor's comments to be disparaging to persuade others to my view, I do so because that is how I feel I've been treated. The majority of people posting here are abrupt to the point of rudeness, and have offered nothing constructive in the way of assistance, other than Stephen, who at least was courteous enough to suggest that I link items that are relevant to my article.Uvmnixon (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse abruptness with mere brevity. I don't think any of us have anything against you personally. It's just the nature of the great majority of comments in a typical AfD discussion, especially if voters think it's a cut-and-dried issue, as some do here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jayjg 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software product, a shareware email client. Searching for "Becky!" alone will drown in false positives, but when you add the name of the publisher (Rimarts) nothing turns up that resembles a reliable source as far as I can tell. Most relevant hits appear to be download pages in Japanese, and even there most of the hits seem to be conjunctions of the names Becky and Rimart.

Proposed deletion (not me! not me!) was recently contested, for reasons not related to the merits (If you think my sense of humor is bad....) Note that this has been discussed for deletion before, in April, 2005 at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Becky! Result of the previous discussion was keep. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 14 January 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.

c

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Strongly suggests an advert of a company with limited notability assertions. Figured best handled with community discussion. NJA (t/c) 14:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Jayjg 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Being a missionary, going to China and even getting murdered are insufficient to address the guidance of WP:PEOPLE. A case for notability could be made on the basis of the existence of Mary E. Watson's book which appears to be based on some of his writing or possibly sermons, however the book is a rambling collection of sweet Pollyanna-ish purple prose that says nothing for notability not already mentioned in the current article. Luckily the book in question was not re-printed after 1896 though it is unfortunately preserved forever by being scanned by Google Books. Ash (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a mistake. Robert Warren Stewart is notable enough, his name being frequently mentioned in both English and Chinese documents. Therefore I believe he is worthy of a Knowledge article. My arguments include but are not limited to:
  1. The value of a book should never be underestimated because it has not been reprinted, nor should the value of a person be depreciated because he had only lived for 45 years. The book In Life and Death is not only "unfortunately" preserved on Google Books, but can also be found on the Project Canterbury Site (a project for recording the history of Anglicanism), which makes it all the more "unfortunate". They have included the book as part of the project because they believed his life is important for studying the Anglican history in Asia.
  2. Stories of R. W. Stewart are not only told in the book In Life and Death, but also in other Anglican historical documents, such as The Story of the Fuh-Kien Mission of the Church Missionary Society of 1890 and For Christ in Fuh-kien of 1904, to name just a few.
  3. R. W. Stewart was the major victim of the Kucheng Massacre, the most infamous anti-missionary incident before the Boxers.
  4. Legacy of R. W. Stewart is still alive in China. The Romanized orthography of Fuzhou dialect was introduced by him (see Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect); a Chinese school in Gutian county where the massacre took place was named after him, though it was changed to its current name "Gutian No. 2 Middle School" when the communists came.

--GnuDoyng (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Three sources establish his notability, including a published biography about him per the comments above. Regardless of Ash's disapproval of the quality of the biographical work, Stewart has a place in history that has obviously not been forgotten since the biography went out of print.Brian0324 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Dublin University Mission to Fuh-Kien mentions Robert as one of the martyrs. The adopted Chinese name of Robert Warren Stewart (史荦伯) has been mentioned 13,500 times on google search which shows that the Foochow Christians in Fujian, whom he preached to did not forget about him. The fact that he was murdered does not decrease his notability either now or in the future. For example, the fact that the Anglo-saxon missionary Bonniface was murdered during his missionary expedition to Frisia did not mean that English and Frisians or their descendants had forgotten about him. --Jose77 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Robert Stewart is not only a religious figure. Actually, he is an important historical figure in the history of Fujian and China. He was murdered in the worst massacre of foreigners ever happened in Fujian and one of the worst in 19th century China, which had very serious political and diplomatic consequences. You can find his name in various history books in both Chinese and English. I see no point in deleting this article. --Luhungnguong (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Speedy declined since this article is different than the one previously deleted through AfD (apparently this reference has been added since then). I don't think the subject is a passes PROF and I don't think the subject passes WP:Bio - a Google search turns up info about his clinic, a company I believe he's affiliated with, some patents, scholarly articles, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article certainly needs substantial clean-up but on closer inspection the subject is notable under several criteria of WP:PROF. For one thing, he has held a named chair position at Duke, as J. Lamar Callaway Professor of Dermatology (WP:PROF#5). There was a big conference in honor of his 70th birthday in 2007. The citation data in GoogleScolar is pretty good. He is also frequently quoted as a dermatology expert in conventional media, see GNews, making a plausible case for WP:PROF#7. In any event, seems to be a reasonably solid case for WP:PROF#1. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct about him meeting the criteria for WP:PROF with the named chair. I think my search engine skills are poor, as I mostly got stuff about the business side of his career. Nonetheless, I suppose I have to say speedy keep in light of the named chair. PDCook (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll start cleaning up the article. If no one closes this discussion as a speedy keep within a day or so, I'll do a non-admin speedy keep, unless anyone contests that he passes WP:PROF. PDCook (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Jayjg 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unremarkable student election for an unremarkable student organization. See also Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2009. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an election falls under WP:CSD#A7. It isn't an individual, animal, organization, or web content. Calathan (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I should have read the name of the article! PDCook (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What Student Council? Please read the article before contributing. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 election

I've added Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2009 to this deletion discussion, because it has identical issues. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Snow anyone? PDCook (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Snowstorm Delete. --Milowent (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is that a problem? Knowledge inclusionists (who don't vote on these pages nearly as much as deletionists do, would say that if knowledge is lost when a page is deleted, then keep it. There is no point deleting this page at all. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

General Comments

No discussion has been entered into on any talk pages before the deletion request. Due process cannot be skipped. Take the time to discuss your issues on the relevant talk page. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • You're new here. All I can say is that when it comes to whether the article should exist at all, this is the relevant talk page. Regarding "due process", everyone has the right to present their "evidence" and to make their case, as well as a right to appeal the judgment. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Have a look at Knowledge:Notability (events). Do you really think an election for a school student representative is of any lasting, historical significance? Did this election receive any coverage at all in any major newspapers? Did it even receive non-trivial, independent coverage in a local newspaper?Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the deletion discussion page for the articles in question, and therefore exactly the right place. I believe you misunderstand the deletion process. It would be helpful for you to review the general notability guidelines so that you may more fully understand what is deleted and what is kept and why. A review of verifiability and reliable sources would be a good idea as well. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not really a dispute over the content of the pages, which would be discussed on their talk pages. It's a dispute over whether the articles ought to be on Knowledge at all. Consequently, this deletion discussion is an appropriate forum to resolve the dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're arguing directly against notability as the guideline for what should be included on Knowledge. Requiring notability ensures that there are sufficient sources of information on a subject to create an article with content that is verifiable, and that there will be sufficient interest from editors to keep the article in decent shape. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue here is not my knowledge of Knowledge notability guidelines. Trust me, I have read them and know them as well as you do. However, I myself lean heavily to the inclusionist wing of Knowledge and find it unfortunate that so many users take every opportunity to delete articles before they can even get off thr ground. To Mandsford, your discrimination against users solely because they have not been here as long as you is unwarranted. Wipkipkedia (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to have offended you. I hope that you will keep contributing to Knowledge even after this discussion closes. Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
No offence was ever taken. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Malik Shabazz. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician. No significant independent coverage. Meets non of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:HOAX. This project was just a rumour. It seems like an attempt to advertise the potential of Zoom developers, which is a private real estate company. Kinfra which is the government establishment did not announce this project as per the claim in the article. Couldnt find enough supporting references from the websites of Kinfra or Zoom -- Rajith Mohan 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. A redirect to January 1 can be made if someone wishes; the appropriate location for contesting that is at WP:RFD. NW (Talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian feasts on January 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was originally created to be used as a template, but it is impractical and not in use. The author started a task that would have required a lot of work and has since abandoned it. The following related items are also included:

Christian feasts on January 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Category:Christian feasts by day

-- Mufka 13:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I know that categories have their own CfD process, but this one is a part of this package and it doesn't make sense to discuss it separately. I couldn't add the AfD tag to the category page because it is in the wrong namespace but I don't think that should prevent it from being a part of this discussion. -- Mufka 13:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. keep and merge arguments do not address the lack of sourcing Spartaz 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable manga series with no evidence that it has received coverage by reliable third-party sources. Deprodder claims that reliable third-part sources are not needed. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Manabiya is a one-vol on hiatus series by Kojima Akira not referenced by ANN and without licensor outside Japan. It's very unlikely to find one outside Japan because that the series was put on hiatus due to author health issue. The author was forced to reduce his/her workload and is focusing on Wa!. --KrebMarkt 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep First off, the deprodder said "deprodded. Some indication of notability, and there is no absolute rule that it needs third party review to exist)". You have a major company starting a new magazine, combining its most successful aspects from two other magazines it is ending and merging as the new one, which publishes this work. There are hundreds of thousands of Google hits for this series. The author is famous for a previous series that was made into an anime. Since there are very few places that ever review any manga at all, and usually only those from the same parent company, and there is no possible way for them to cover every notable manga there is, that suggested guideline for establishing notability can really be taken seriously. It hurts nothing to leave the article here. Dream Focus 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If it is notable where are the reliable third-party sources that demonstrate it's notable? No book is notable without third-party sources. Your argument basically comes to "It exists, therefore it is notable", which is a non-argument. —Farix (t | c) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
@Dream Focus This work isn't serialized anymore as on indefinite hiatus. There is no more a page dedicated to this series in the Square Enix website while the author still ongoing work Wa! has one. This work is as dead and incomplete as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's just as well Kojima is focusing on Wa! as, Mahoraba notwithstanding, his doofy sense of humor makes him a better yonkoma author than drama writer, judging by this effort anyway -- but that's neither here nor there. Since the story is on indefinite hiatus with the plot barely getting started (still introducing new basic characters), it's unlikely to be licensed or adapted any time soon, and without reviews we've not nothing to demonstrate it passes WP:BK at this time or the near future. The title is, however, a valid search term (both as "Manabiya" and "Mana Biya"), so selectively merge to Akira Kojima, leaving a redirect behind. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's go for the selective merge as prescribed by Quasirandom. This series is buried for years just after it started. Now if the author health could improve enough to be able to get back to it the better. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Creator contested PROD on this footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level with the rationale that there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:N. However, most of these are routine football coverage (match reports, player profiles etc.) and these do not pass WP:NTEMP. Apart from this, the only other media coverage is of a driving offence, which again seems to be routine announcements from the Manchester Evening News.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Trivial list. A never ending subjective collection of covers. Many of these songs have been covered by hundreds of artists. No rationale for notability for each entry or why that particular cover artist was chosen. Information is already covered in the existing song articles PaulHammond2 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Against deletion:

  • Subjective? - Criteria for inclusion have been stated (see following).
  • Covered by hundreds of artists? - An overstatement. Many of these songs have been covered by other artists, who do not meet the criteria (are not blues-rock or rock performers).
  • No rationale for entry? - As stated, the criteria is a blues song, i.e., a song originally written, performed, or recorded by a blues artist. The links to the songs identify them as authored or recorded by blues artists.
  • Particular artist chosen? - Again, as stated, the artists included are those blues-rock or rock performers that have covered the song. The links to those performers identify them as blues-rock or rock performers.
  • Covered in existing articles? - Maybe, but spread out over forty plus articles. The purpose of a list is to gather the information in one place. It aids in "information, navigation, and development" (WP:LISTPURP).

Ojorojo (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It is a subjective list lacking NPOV, soapboxing, and contains errors. You have chosen to focus on particular artists. "Whole Lotta Love" for example is not a cover as you claim on the list. While part of the lyrics may have been borrowed from "You Need Love", it is not a cover. Your list fails to mention this. Similar with other songs. If you have an axe to grind against certain white artists, a list on an encyclopaedia is not acceptable. PaulHammond2 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Subjective, NPOV, etc.? - Again the criteria for inclusion on the list are clearly stated. They are neither too narrow or broad. Anyone can add to the list, which indeed they have.
  • Focus? - Since the list concerns blues-rock, blues-rock or rock performers are the focus. The links identify the performers as blues-rock or rock performers. Again, anyone can add to the list and have.
Comment: Over 90% being anonymous IP edits. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Straight cover? - The list does not claim to include only "straight covers". A cover may be a song "with a radically different style". (Knowledge Cover version#Modern cover versions). The links to the songs or performers provide the additional information.
  • Axe to grind? - This is a patently ridiculous and offensive statement. Is that what this is really about?

Ojorojo (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "Whole Lotta Love" is not a cover. The credits clearly indicate this. If it was a cover it would state Dixon alone. That is not the case. It is not a cover. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This list and the list of blues standards have two different sets of criteria for inclusion. One focuses on blues-rock or rock performers, while the other focuses on blues performers. Inevitably, there is some overlap, as in List of blues-rock performers and List of blues musicians. However, the simple fact is blues-rock and blues are not the same. Ojorojo (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is an overlap, which is why the blues-rock list can easily be accomodated into the list of blues standards without any difficulty. Regardless if it's played electric or acoustic, it's still blues music. The chord structures are the same. No need to create content forks. Wurzburgwatch (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jayjg 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual. The references for this article in its current form are as follows:

Further searches for sources (web, books, news) do not suggest the existence of source indicating notability (he appears to have received a death notice—not an editorial obituary—in the LA Times, though. matic 08:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on sources

As of this revision, which reflects Cirt's rewrite, the references are as follows:

  • The Scandal of Scientology.
Unable to review.
  • Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine.
Unable to review.
  • The Gernsback Days.
Two references, with zero editorial text (entries in lists of works). No information about individual whatsoever.
  • American Fiction, 1901-1925: A Bibliography.
One mention with zero editorial text (entry in list of works). No information about individual whatsoever.
  • Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years: A complete coverage of the genre magazines Amazing, Astounding, Wonder, and others from 1926 through 1936.
One paragraph description of the subject based explicitly on speculation from his writings. This doesn't even claim to be a reliable source about him.
  • Stories of the far North.
Passing mention of subject
  • Worlds of Tomorrow: The Amazing Universe of Science Fiction Art.
Mention of a story. Brief mention of E-meter without reference to his role in its creation.
  • The World's Best Short Stories of 1930.
Mention of subject in list with no additional detail.
  • A Piece of Blue Sky.
Unable to review.
  • Suppressed and Incredible Inventions.
Passing mention of subject as inventor of E-meter without any reference to him beyond that.
  • "Clear thinking".
Passing mention of subject as inventor of E-meter, passing mention of patent rights dispute.
  • Far Out: 101 Strange Tales from Science's Outer Edge.
Brief mention in single paragraph about E-meter and patent rights.
  • L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?.
Two references cited by Google Books, only able to review one in snippet view. Passing reference (note name is misspelled as Matthison).
  • Further reading references
Unchanged from previous analysis.

While there are a number of the references that I was unable to check, none of the remaining ones support inclusion in this encyclopedia. Invention of the e-meter is not sufficient for notability, nor are the basic conditions of BIO or GNG met. matic 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bleiler is the reference that convinces me that Mathison meets the GNG. Just to establish Bleiler's credentials, his early work is described in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF as the cornerstone of SF bibliography, and the cited volume is described as an expansion of that work. This is a fundamental SF reference. The only parts of the GNG that could be argued against are "significant" and "reliable". For the former, one paragraph may not be substantial, but the man gets his own entry in this (very authoritative) reference work. To me that's significant. For the latter, yes, Bleiler says he is speculating about the man's job, but the other data is not speculation, and in any case this is the wrong definition of reliable. We can accurately report that an RS speculated in such-and-such a way about Mathison. The situation is analogous to sources about B. Traven, many of which speculate but the reliability of which is not in question. Having said that, I agree this is marginal, and have voted "weak keep". Mike Christie (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Appreciate your views on this. I respectfully come to a different conclusion. For a little context, the following is the Bleiler entry on Mathison in its entirety:
Judging by this story and the author's The Radio Buster (Philadelphia: Stokes, 1924), Mathison was probably a professional brass pounder (i.e., old-time telegraph operator) with some exeperience in Alaska and elsewhere. Mathison also had two short pieces in Gernsback's Radio News and "The Death Bottle" in Weird Tales, March 1925. Mathison was a prolific author elsewhere under the pseud. Dex Volney, contributing Western stories with Alaskan settings to Street and Smith magazines. Apparently resident in New York at this time and connected with the Pacific Radio Co., New York City.
The entry then has one-paragraph blurbs on two of Mathison's works. Even "weakly", I don't see how this satisfies the GNG or AUTHOR. While the source is reliable, it explicitly disclaims reliability about the subject, and even if it were known to be accurate, this hardly qualifies as significant coverage or, while not explicitly mentioned at AUTHOR, significant editorial review of works, which has often been found to establish notability of authors. matic 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
After some more thought I think you're right that this is very marginal for "significant". Bleiler really doesn't know much about him. I have struck my keep vote below and will think about it some more, and may come back and !vote again. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. Can you point to one, single, reliable source that provides any in-depth coverage, or anything that could even reasonably be considered coverage at all? matic 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ya, all the sources together give a good deal of coverage. I will work to improve the article. ;) Cirt (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, unencyclopedic essay, WP:SYNTH. Before I PRODded it, the first line read "New Theory on the Origin of the Albanian Flag," but the author's now struck "new." I don't think there's anything here that could be merged to Flag of Albania.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

An aspiring model who was eliminated on episode 3 of the thirteenth season of America's Next Top Model. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE, and I can't even really find that much press relating to her ANTM appearance. At any rate, we generally don't have articles on every otherwise non-notable contestant of every series of every reality show. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jayjg 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex Gaskarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. Has a number of GHits that are mostly listings. GNEWS are brief mentions of involvement in projects. Article lacks references outside of internal website mentions. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

*Strong Keep Best article in Knowledge. User:ZimmerRealEstateServices.com Just kidding. Doesn't seem notable unless there is something that should be included in the article that isn't. JB50000 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep per WP:Company: The very first line of WP:Company states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A simple google search produces more than 24,100 hits so there is clearly reliable third party sources. This debate is not about whether the article sucks but whether the company is notable enough to be included. Any company that develops large projects such as the headquarters campus of Sprint-Nextel, develops the new headquarters of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, and has a contract to build a plant to build nuclear bombs should on its face be notable. This article was tagged ONE MINUTE after it was posted at 12:04 AM Eastern with with a speedy delete. Instead of replacing the inhouse references as I intended (and which are easily available in the 24,100 hits), I had to spend the time getting the speedy tag removed. The tag was removed at 12:52 AM Eastern. The nominator then placed it in AFD at 1:32 AM Eastern.Americasroof (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Americasroof (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – The total number of GHits is only about 325. I understand the first page in the search indicates a higher number, but if you go to the last page it settles at 325. BTW - per WP:Google, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." Unfortunately, as indicated above, it appears the GHits that are mostly listings and fail to meet WP:RS. Keep in mind notability is not inherited from other organizations nor does "real-world" notability equal Knowledge notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Zimmer has a contract to build a nuclear bomb factory. It's not in passing. Zimmer has the contract. Most people would think that is notable. My incentive to create the article was to show that the Zimmer has already developed several high profile projects in Kansas City including the billion dollar campus of Sprint-Nextel, the new Federal Reserve headquarters and a basketball museum by the Sprint Center, and the complex around the Kansas Speedway. Zimmer will hire the architects, the actual builders, etc. But Zimmer has the contract!!!! On its face when a company develops billion dollar projects, it's notable. Americasroof (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly. Apart from "BizJournals" hits, Google News Archives yields a bunch of local stories that mention when one of the parties to a commercial real estate transaction are represented by this real estate agency. That isn't substantial coverage. The article tries to claim inherited notability by naming important clients they've represented in Kansas City area real estate deals. That just ends up making the page look more like advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The developer of an extensively covered project is prima facie notable. Donald Trump is a developer. He puts together the various projects and hires the architect, builder, gets the financing and manages the project and manages the project after it is built. Zimmer is in the same position. If the projects it builds are notable then it itself is notable. Architects achieve notability because of notable buildings they design. Americasroof (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Prior prod was disputed on the grounds that this could be a useful search term. IMO, though, I'm not seeing the usefulness. Delete unless there's a much more convincing reason to keep than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia..." Geeteshgadkari (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's an alleged Australian former professional footballer and current model. Sourcing is highly deficient, though: he supposedly played for Real Aranjuez CF (which the article spells "Aranguaz"), where he was recognized to be a "soccer prodigy." Well, "eddy parra" aranjuez returns an apparently unrelated YouTube video, "eddie parra" aranjuez returns some sort of catalog listing under "Recently Arrivied MIDIs," "Edward Parra" aranjuez returns a user comment on something called a "Webzine de metal," "Eduardo Parradise" aranjuez returns this page, and "Edward Parradise" aranjuez returns nothing at all. There's an "unofficial, independent Western Australian Football (Soccer) Website" that indicates an Edward Parra once scored a goal for Perth SC, but I really can't find any other information in a reliable source to confirm even that. Other than what I've mentioned, this entire article seems totally unverifiable. My PROD was contested, so here we go.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Agreed there is nothing out there that shows this kid to be notable. Ref to him scoring for Perth was in relation to U-18 / reserves report, so even ignoring that it is a passing mention it comes nowhere close to ATHLETE. Article doesn't claim fame from fashion, merely mentions that is what he now does, but there is no notability to be found there either.--ClubOranje 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Sarah 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - never played for a professional club, fails WP:ATHLETE and Steve-Ho (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Very self-promotional article that has WP:BIO notability concerns. NJA (t/c) 10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A very self promotional article for an 83 year old. And a quick look on Amazon shows that his book Servicing Transistor Radios was printed in 1958,1959,1971 and 1975. So I wouldn't be quick to judge this. Jbtscott (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jbtscott: It could be written by one of his children or grandchildren, given the detailed family info. My online search was unsuccessful, I didn't find any substantial sources proving notability of that person. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Autobiography Hagiography of non-notable writer Orange Mike | Talk 05:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Pendragon is a notable writer.

He is listed in the Directory of Poets and Writers (put out by Poets & Writers); and in Whos' Who in America (of which Mr. Lowrey shares a similar distinction). He had his own interactive author discussion page at the Terror Tales website and a similar publisher's page at Horror World.

His notability as a publisher is evinced by the inclusion of his press in The Poet's Market, The Novel & Short Story Writer's Market, The Directory of Poetry Publishers, and many others.

He has received numerous awards and nominations for his writing, including honorable mention in The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror, and having been twice voted Supreme Terror Scribe by his peers. Both his writing and his publications have been written about in The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror.

He has been awarded membership in The Poets Guild, The Doppelganger Society, and The Society of Terror Scribes.

      • Part of Mr. Lowrey's objection to this article appears to stem from his assumption that I have "a close connection" with Mr. Pendragon. I met Mr. Pendragon twice, about 15 years ago, at a pair of invitation only events given by the Poetry Society of America in Manhattan. He gave me a copy of one of his publications, Penny Dreadful (a multi-author literary journal specializing in horror short stories and poetry). I emailed him after reading the journal and have remained in touch with him over the years (we exchange a few emails each year). I am a fan of his writing, and have followed his career, but am hardly what one would consider to be a close connection.

I have submitted the article (along with any significant changes) to Mr. Pendragon prior to posting it at Knowledge for verification, and have corrected any information noted as inaccurate. I also requested that he supply the photograph which illustrates the article.

His works have been published in The United States, Canada, England, Ireland, Wales, India, South Africa, and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.247.13 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So, whoever you are, you have a conflict of interest and have been relying on the subject's own word and claims for information. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How does an extensive knowledge of an author's publications qualify as a conflict of interest???

If you look at the list of publications supplied in the article -- many of which can be found on the internet (and do a little research - hint: try checking out the references) you'll see that Masque Noir is published in Australia, Terror Tales in England, etc. I don't know who you are, Orange Mike, but you seem to be dead set on removing this article.

Why?

If you haven't heard of Michael Pendragon, you should look at the numerous times he's been cited in various editions of the Mammoth Book of Year's Best Horror and Year's Best Fantasy & Horror to see that other people are very familiar with him.

I should think that you would want to base his "notability" upon the fact that he was a significant enough figure to appear in such books, rather than on your own unfamiliarity with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemarkham2 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest stems from the fact that the writer seems to be a friend of yours, your have been consulting with him about this article and relying on what he has told you, and thus you may be considered not to have a neutral point of view about him.

A BOOK SEARCH (recommended above) at Amazon.com produced the following results: 1. PENNY DREADFUL #13 - Multi-author Literary Horror Journal published by and containing work by Michael Pendragon; 2. COBWEBS & WHISPERS - Award winning short story collection by Scott Thomas containing an Introduction by Michael Pendragon; 3. TALES OF DEVILTRY & DOOM - Short story collection by John B. Ford containing an introduction by Michael Pendragon; 4. THE BIBLE OF HELL - Multi-author collection of poetry and short stories published by Michael Pendragon and containing some poems and short stories of his own; 5. THE BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES 2005 - Multi-author short story collection containing Mr. Pendragon's Literary Journal, SONGS OF INNOCENCE, as one of its sources; 6. NIGHTSCAPES - Short story collection by Michael Pendragon, published by BJM Press, England; 7. BEST NEW HORROR (MAMMOTH BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR, 2002 - Multi-author collection citing works by Michael Pendragon; 8. THE YEAR'S BEST FANTASY & HORROR, NO. 15 - Multi-author collection featuring writeups of Mr. Pendragon's publications, and featuring work published in them; 9. BEST NEW HORROR (MAMMOTH BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR, 1999 - Multi-author collection citing works by Michael Pendragon; 10. BEST NEW HORROR (MAMMOTH BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR, 2004 - Multi-author collection citing works by Michael Pendragon; 11. THE BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES 2002 - Multi-author short story collection containing Mr. Pendragon's Literary Journal, SONGS OF INNOCENCE, as one of its sources; 12. GARGOYLE 43 - Multi-author literary journal reviewing Mr. Pendragon's publications; 13. WRITE WITH FIRE (THOUGHTS ON THE CRAFT OF WRITING) - Charles Gramlich, includes example of Mr. Gramlich's correspondence to Mr. Pendragon; 14. 10. BEST NEW HORROR (MAMMOTH BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR, 2001 - Multi-author collection citing works by Michael Pendragon; 15. THE YEAR'S BEST FANTASY & HORROR, NO. 19 - Multi-author collection featuring writeups of Mr. Pendragon's publications, and featuring work published in them.

And that's just what's currently available at Amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.247.13 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of self-published and vanity stuff is available at Amazon. None of this is even remotely relevant to this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Year's Best Horror and the Year's Best Fantasy and Horror are hardly vanity publications! These are well known and well respected books that appear yearly in major bookstores.

Mammoth is published in England and Year's Best F&H in NYC by St. Martins Press. These books include write ups of Mr. Pendragon's publications and writings in the horror field. Geez, look them up at the Barnes & Noble site:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Years-Best-Fantasy-and-Horror/Ellen-Datlow/e/9780312290696/?itm=3&USRI=ellen+datlow%2c+year%27s+best+fantasy+%26+horror

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=mammoth+book+of+best+new+horror&box=mammoth%20book%20of%20best%20new%20horror&pos=-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemarkham2 (talk • contribs) — Petemarkham2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I did not say that either of those was a vanity publication (although naturally I will ignore the sales pitches made at giant predatory booksellers' websites); in fact, I know the editor of one of those two anthologies and believe she knows me as well. I merely was pointing out that all sorts of junk is on Amazon, and thus a listing of what's on Amazon is not relevant to this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mea Culpa. I picked his name as a username while editing. I never thought anyone would ever take issue with it. I suppose if I logged on as "Archie Leach" while editing the article on Cary Grant, someone would claim his ghost was responsible it.

Of course the fact that it would be self-defeating for an author to sign his own name to an article he posted about himself never enter anyone's mind.

You know, I'm sorry I ever posted here. I thought that sharing my knowledge of a well known small press publisher/author would be appreciated here. Trying to prove his "notability" to people who dismiss well known Year's Best books as possible "vanity" publications without even bothering to look them up is more frustration than I need.

Orange Mike's knowledge or ignorance of a subject appears to be all that matters here. Fuck it. Delete the goddam article. I've had enough of this idiocy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemarkham2 (talk • contribs) — Petemarkham2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As a matter of fact, I am not without some expertise in the field, and one of the things I know is that this is not the 1950s: there are a myriad of small self-publishers and micro-publishers, not all of whom are notable the way Arkham House is notable. I know also that there are many authors who sell a few stories to major markets, without necessarily becoming notable. I deeply regret that you have turned this into a personality clash instead of a rational discussion. The rest of us will continue this discussion without you, apparently, but will nonetheless look into the issues you raised in between the personal attacks and insults. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh -- I also know that The Poets Guild, The Doppelganger Society, and The Society of Terror Scribes is a list of three non-notable organizations. If Scarlotti/Pendragon/whatever is a member of the Horror Writers Association, like many of the notable writers I know and that know me, that would mean something. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to learn that you see this as a personality clash, Orange Mike. Perhaps I was reading your comments incorrectly, but it appeared from your dismissal of my references to highly respected books like The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror" (in which Mr. Pendragon is continually cited in the editors' opening chapter summarizing notable events in the horror medium over the previous year) as not being "even remotely relevant" that you had already made up your mind on the matter, and were refusing to even consider what I believe to be valid sources.

I'm glad to hear that you are an expert on the workings of the small press, and that you both know and are known by many notable writers. I have met and spoken with a few writers (who I consider notable) at poetry readings and such, but cannot boast that any of these have any knowledge of me. I have queried Mr. Pendragon as to whether or not he is a member of the HWA, and am afraid that his reply would not be suitable for print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.247.13 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. See below. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be book-like, the Literature section is probably the best example. A transwiki to Wikibooks could do, as this might be the perfect place for this article. May be some original reasearch involved too. ConCompS (Talk to me) 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. What I will do is wikify the article so that it at least doesn't appear more suitable for WikiBooks than the encyclopedia. Please revise votes if necessary. It will still need some work, but I feel strongly that it should stay, as I know that this is actually a very mainstream topic in the scholarly community. Plenty of work has been done in this area to establish notability. Transwiki to Books will kill this topic, I think.—DMCer™ 07:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Here is the difference between the nominated version and my revisions.—DMCer™ 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability iBen 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the subject does not meet any of our inclusion criteria in WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

See WP:PROF; the article makes no claim for notability other than he is a scholar with some articles and a book. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. I don't think it fits any speedy category, but I can't find any significant information about it in any reliable source (and precious little on forums or message boards, either).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

--77.76.50.154 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)I added more sources now.

--Ivshti (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)What sources do you exactly need? I am waiting for the DistroWatch admin to approve it, I've submitted it on 4th of January this year but DistroWatch says that there is a 90 day minimum for every distribution to stay on the waiting list. That's the reason for not having it at DistroWatch. There are a lot of proofs that I have released Linvo versions a long time ago, but I wanted to stay out of DistroWatch and stay out of promoting it until I release a release with GNOME. Sadly, those are in Bulgarian, but still: http://www.linux-bg.org/cgi-bin/y/index.pl?page=repository&key=408800417 - Linvo 0.8 release announcement. The website seems so show the date wrong, but the comments are from the right date - the first comment is from "11-11-2008". So it's a big mistake of mine that I promoted it only in Linux-BG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. wow a genuine flash mob. I wonder where that came from. Anyway, none of the newbies have come up with sources or a compelling policy based reason to keep this and the delete side was established editors with sound policy based arguments Spartaz 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Virtually unknown actor outside of small roles in 3 Christian films. Little mentions in mainstream sources. SuaveArt (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Flywheel is indeed a little known film, but Facing the Giants is better known, and Flameproof is a major production . However, his role in Flameproof is way down among the miscellaneous cast, and he is not one of the principal characters in Facing the Giants. Taken all together the sum is insufficient notability DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I move to keep the page for Tracy Goode. Sherwood Pictures is one of the most well known Christian production companies. Tracy has had leading roles in both Flywheel and Facing the Giants. He is very well known- in fact when he was at Walt Disney World a fan approached him wanting his autograph. Just read what people on his facebook page have said about him-

“I'll always be one of your biggest fans!!!”“We love his humor” “Hugggg Fan ! Love your work !” “if the genes of the great funny men of our time were manipulated in a lab to create one supernaturally funny guy, i believe strongly that man would not compare to the genius of Tracy Goode.” And many people are hoping, crossing their fingers, and asking that Tracy is selected to appear in Sherwood Pictures forth movie, Courageous. “bring back Tracy Goode, I like him, he is funny” Tracy is also an event speaker, having appeared at many men’s conference and churches. Tracy does not fit into the category of "Insufficient notability". If Tracy's page is deleated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.174.146 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — 65.210.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:ILIKEIT--SuaveArt (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I also believe the page for Tracy Goode should be kept on Knowledge. The films he has starred in/produced are widely available at major retailers(Amazon.com, Wal-Mart and Sam's, all major Christian media outlets). He has a growing fan-base on Twitter and Facebook. If anything Tracy Goode's article should be expanded, not deleted. I also think that there is a great deal of irony that SuaveArt knew enough/ researched to desire the deletion of this entry, which again speaks to the popularity of Tracy Goode and not anonymity. Mikemc87 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)— Mikemc87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Actually I had never heard of the guy until I found the article on Fireproof (film) and researched Sherwood Pictures from there. And if you think Twitter and Facebook fans = "notability", then you might want to brush up on WP:N. A band my high school friends were in probably has more fans than this guy does. Does that mean they deserve an article?--SuaveArt (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: Despite the huge influx of SPAs (I tagged 9 in total), comments from established editors are few and split right down the middle. Under the circumstances, I think a relist may be beneficial. New users are reminded that AfD consensus is determined by the merits of the arguments, not counting votes. Arguments that are not policy-based may be ignored by the closer. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete the voters are out in force, and although I was ready to be swayed it turns out that these three movies were produced by his own local church's media department, where he's the assistant media director. Goode appears in "rest of cast listed alphabetically" for Fireproof, which is the most notable of these movies, and although you can't really tell with the others since the cast is all listed alphabetically, I just don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films", and that's taking into account that he was a volunteer actor and the following attempt to look into his notability: there's pretty much nothing about him in the news or elsewhere: two sentences from the local TV station, mentioned in passing as one in a list of names in reviews from Variety and the Seattle Times, and a bunch of false positives. General searches like "Tracy Goode" Sherwood find his Twitter, his Facebook, passing references in posts on Christian message boards, and the like—actually a lot less than I expected to find; pretty much nothing about him alone that wasn't by him. If his roles were so important, there'd have to be something more than what I'm finding. I must say, I'm impressed with this church's aggressive use of social media for marketing, which I'd guess includes this AfD. However, the arguments above are pretty much all of the "He's funny!" or "He deserves to be notable!" variety. Whatever else he may be, unfortunately these credits and sources don't support calling Tracy Goode a notable actor.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete For failing to find significant coverage other than trivial mentions for this actor. Well, to be honest, if it weren't all these SPAs, maybe I would have remained neutral. Blodance (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fairly major roles in Facing the Giants and Flywheel (part of each film's lead support cast). Per WP:ENT, he's notable enough to have an article. Filmcom (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -Despite all the SPAs, in consideration of notability for Christians, WP:CSB also applies to religious bias. Goode appears to have enough fans to meet notability standards in that area as well. Invmog (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Precisely as SuaveArt pointed out earlier; just because someone likes the article does not, in itself, make the article notable enough to keep and in the same way just because someone does not like an article does not, in itself, make the article a good candidate for deletion. Hence WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Invmog (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Also, I just found on WP:PEOPLE (about 1/4th of the way down in the section "Any biography") it says that the biography article is notable enough if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." And, specifically in the field of the Christian film industry it certainly looks as though the sources says Goode "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Although that might not settle all of the doubts of the notability of this article if those who are for deletion could list very specific improvements that could made to the article then perhaps we could work our way of this deletion discussion. Invmog (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus default to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This article cannot be backed up, the resources are not specific, and could be a hoax or attempt a humor.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This article appears to be well sourced, though, as the nominator notes, it could use page numbers. The AfD isn't viable on grounds of poor sourcing. It may however be non notable, depending upon the community consensus. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per WP:POLITICIAN Olaf Davis (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Reason XINOPH | TALK 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has not garnered any independent sources in four years of editing. The article is about a former legislator who has never held or run for higher office, and has never served in legislative leadership; in general other Maine legislators have not been the subject of Knowledge articles. The person has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Indeed, much of the article reads as if it is self-promotional.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there are few comments, I see consensus to keep this. (non-admin closure) Pmlineditor ∞ 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements Eeekster (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - this seems to be just as notable as any of a dozen other casual game studios on Wiki - and has more shipped games than most.

Disagree as well - Boomzap's a very well known game company in Southeast Asia, I will be attaching links to talks at various game conferences as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabusch (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thought I already removed the "biased" POV? Seems like a legit article to me. Disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepedia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus default to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer. I can't find any references supporting notability. PDCook (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just noticed the List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers article, which contains an exact copy of the Masakatsu Aoki article. We could just do a redirect of Masakatsu Aoki to List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers instead. PDCook (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the intent. Regardless of whether this stub meets the criteria for notability or not, I believe grouping stubs into an article like List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers is the way to go.

The guidelines for notability state: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." In the specific field of astronomy, this astronomer has discovered several asteroids and supernovae, and these discoveries are now in the permanent astronomical record (journals and the IAU's Minor Planet Center (MPC) asteroid lists). The problem is defining what is meant by "widely recognised". No astronomer would deny he's a minor planet and supernova discoverer, since no astronomer would deny the validity of the MPC data entries. This falls in a gray zone. Urhixidur (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More hits can be obtained by searching the NASA ADS for "M. Aoki", although these are intertwined with at least one other M. Aoki's publications (a particle physicist).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source. Ruslik_Zero 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:CLUB: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." The Chicago Sun-Times does not help in this regard since it is the local paper. OCNative (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ARTIST. References to Mårtén are tangential in the articles available (in Google News and in the article itself) or the references are to his profile rather than an article. Having worked for notable people does not make a person notable otherwise we would create articles for any celebrity's body guard and chauffeur. To demonstrate notability articles would have to explain why Mårtén is distinct and notable as a recording engineer. Ash (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:ENT rather significantly; the most appearances he's ever had in a single program is 3, and he doesn't have the credits to fulfil it with a string of minor roles. Ironholds (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not a celebrity actor, but clearly passes WP:ENT with major film role, multiple TV appearances, and lead roles in live action (Tom Sawyer) and animated productions (Oliver Twist). GNews search shows specific discussion of Tom Sawyer performance. Not terribly durable as acting careers go, but once notable, always notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    Simply multiple TV appearances is not enough; it requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - one major film role is not enough. If the live action is notable, I'm not seeing it. Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No sourcing, and most of the article was namedropping and coatrack, since removed. If he passes WP:ENT... WP:PROVEIT. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

unnotable music band, along with Tomahawk Blues Band. Article was created by the acknowledged son of Luc Hensill (bands' guitarist), User:Raoniz.
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as above:

Tomahawk Blues Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Licory (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello !

There are not yet all the references but over time they arrive gradually. Réferences of the sixties are very difficult to find and more, as I work, I do not have much time to find them either. Collectors will help me soon. I was informed that the RTBF could digitalized their archive with a twenty million €uro budget. They started few months ago (RTBF (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the French-speaking southern part of Belgium).

Before to be called The Klan (Belgian band), The Klan (Belgian band) was called "Les Ombres" :

  • Shows of Les Ombres at the Paris Olympia theater with Chuck Berry : 7 February and 2 November 1965 with live broadcast by the French radio Europe 1 (Musicorama).
  • Les Ombres on tour with Gene Vincent : Paris, Lyon, Lausanne (Switzerland), etc ... in 1964.
  • Shows of Les Ombres in Rock Festival as musicians of Vince Taylor in Paris in 1964, etc ...

In 1965, Olympia Records sells the contracts of "Les Ombres" to Palette Records (BMG Universal Music). The producer of Palette Records imposes a new name to the "Les Ombres": "The Klan".

The Klan (Belgian band) released three L.P. albums on a major label :

  • EMI / # 062.64312 : The Klan / L.P. Album / Belgium / 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).
  • Palette Records (BMG Universal Music) / # MPB 3020 : The Klan / Join Us / L.P. Album / Belgium / 1966
  • Equipe Internacional / # EQI-2001 : The Klan / Join Us / L.P. Album / Brazil / 1967

Albums References : the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives :

The Klan (The Belgian Beatles) was selected by The Rolling Stones for giving a show with them at the Paris Olympia theater the 11th April 1967 in the afternoon with live broadcast by the French radio Europe 1 (Musicorama presented by Hubert).

  • Several Shows of more than one hour of music for RTBF (INR) TV Broadcast : Feu Vert (Green Light) as Headliner Band.


TOMAHAWK BLUES BAND :

  • A 50 minutes video excerpt from the movie "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" was TV broadcasted by most of the TV Broadcast in the world in 1968 and 1969 like : RTBF (INR), Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep, Netherlands Tv Broadcast, American Tv Broadcast, etc ...

Marc Lobet, the Director of the movie "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" is one of the top Directors of Belgium, see Marc Lobet on IMDB, Knowledge, Google, etc ... The music is interpreted by Luc Hensill, Michel Clément and Robert Chabre dit l'Eclair who are also the composers of the original soundtracks. Luc Hensill, Michel Clement, Robert Chabre dit l'Eclair are also the Top actors of "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band". It is an Experimental Full-Length Film 35mm Color. Tomahawk Blues Band is also a blues legend in Belgium and also all over the world like a Belgian blues legend.

Tomahawk also created the Background Score of "L'Aurore Rouge et Noire" by Fernando Arrabal for the Producer : the "Théâtre de Poche" (Brussels-Capital).

The RTBF (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the French-speaking southern part of Belgium) is the Producer and the Copyright owner of the name Tomahawk Blues Band and of the movie "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" by Marc Lobet.

  • "A trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" by Marc Lobet was the first movie of the Pop Shop produced by the RTBF, they followed with East of Eden, Genesis, Yes, etc ... The RTBF started to digitalize those movies. Great References !
Comment: Comment above made by both articles' main editor. --79.181.36.66 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

More references:

  • Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, The Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p.335: Les Ombres, isbn = 90-5096-069-3
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Not a notable person under Knowledge Guidelines. Appears to be a self-serving lawyer biography FlagKite (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I cannot find significant coverage for this person, and it is likely to remain a poorly (not reliably/independently) referenced BLP. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep He was mentioned in the New York Times. It seems he is one of the lead counsel attorneys in the Madoff case according to this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I find that to be a trivial mention, not significant coverage. I also currently have little reason to believe that working the Madoff case would be anything beyond WP:BLP1E, if that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Being a named lawyer in the Madoff case is probably about as high profile as a lawyer in his profession can get without being a DA or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not really enough of a consensus for deletion at this time. Merge discussions may take place through editorial consensus, at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable Swedish film festival. Last AfD ended in no consensus with the only two users who commented giving invalid arguments (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and claiming sources exist without quoting them or inserting them in article). Six months later, this still has not established notability and probably never will. There are also serious conflict of interest issues with this article. Redfarmer (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. For a festival that's supposedly existed since 1978, I admit I find it shocking that there's so little information about this, though I did find this and this in what appear to be reliable sources. I must say I disagree with the nominator's comment in the previous discussion that "f notability isn't 'huge,' it shouldn't have an article." That's not policy. However, to the extent this festival can be considered a "product" of Värmlands Filmförbund, WP:PRODUCT implies that it "should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." That article's currently a stub with virtually no content, so a merge seems like the best course of action.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that the company's article is marginal notability as well and was included in the last nomination. I broke it up this time to allow individual consideration. AfD for the company is here.Redfarmer (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • It's actually not a company, it's a not-for-profit regional film (lover's) association. Possibly this is not easy to figure out if you don't read Swedish. Tomas e (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion is not linked properly from the article - it has a redlink in the template where the link to this article should be! Tomas e (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The link is correctly formed, as you could easily check by clicking on it—you would be brought here. Sometimes links to new pages will appear as a redlink for a while; I once read why this was, and although I forget the specifics I think it's related to Knowledge:Purge.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I noticed this was the case. I've never noticed this phenomenon before. Sorry for wasting space in the discussion. Tomas e (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Just copypasted from here http://cs.wikipedia.org/Diskografie_Hany_Zagorov%C3%A9 no reliable sources (two links to youtube, wtf). Also notability is in question. Delete. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • strong keep. Extremely famous singer in her country. Notability easily verifiable. BTW, keep your "wtf"s for your buddies. - Altenmann >t 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Discos is NOT a reliable source. Discogs is a user editable page (just like wikipedia for example). "Extremely famous singer in her country"? i lol'd so hard. I AM from that country and I'm saying I don't know her. Haha, you're a funny guy! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Where you see refs from discogs? You have already demonstrated a certain ignorance of the culture of the country you claim you are from. Therefore your lulz are not funny and make me doubt the truthfulness of your user page. - Altenmann >t 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere. Hey hey hey mister "i'm much clever than you and i know everything about you", watch your attacking - WP:ATTP/WP:POV. But yep, that user page is pretty retarded, but nobody gives a shit. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Where you see some ignorance of the culture of mine? You just post some random article called "cecka". That's not even funny. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: also it should be noted that YouTube is NOT a reliable source. Stop adding it to Knowledge, thanks . RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please show me the policy. FYI YouTube is not "source", it is "storage media". The source would be what is stored there: TV programs, lectures, etc. - Altenmann >t 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, YouTube is not a RS due to WP:SPS. See the following discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hana Zagorová discography reference

Altenmann is right, among the top singer from CzechoSlovakia and Czech Republic.

Hana Zagorová. Má deväť Zlatých slávikov (9 x Zlatý slávik- is among the highest awards for musicians) en version is not entirely correct to speak only Czech Nightingale no Gold Nightingale. Gold Nightingale was awarded in CzechoSlovakia. If you can not find the resources to find English sources s Czech Resources and translate them using Google Translate.--Tom778 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC) from Slovakia

Huh? Recent en: versions say Zlaty Slavík, not Czech Nightingale (fixed on Jan 2). - Altenmann >t 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
RockandDiscoFanCZ is no from Czech Republic? Because what else would know it's significant in the Czech pop singer.--Tom778 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
reflist --> all albums!!! of Hana Zagorová

^ Hana Zagorova official website. Breadcrumb path to discography (with music samples and song texts): "Menu">>"Diskografie" (implemented via Adobe Flash)

    • V této sekci naleznete kompletní diskografii Hany Zagorové. Jedná se o nejrozsáhlejší zvukový a textový archiv na stránkách tohoto druhu na českém internetu.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Generally fails WP:MUSICBIO. According to Allmusic and Billboard, artist has released a few albums but has never had anythign that charted. No significant awards. The name wasn't as uncommon as I thought it would be. There are several executives with that name, but most of the gnews returns I got that pertained to this Bill Popp were announcements of where he would be playing or what local TV show he might appear on. I didn't see much in the way of significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The artist' song "Speaks Little English" was a honorable mention in Billboard's 13th Annual World Songwriting Competition. Popp is also a voting member of the New York Chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences. A number of press coverage also features on the band’s official website, with articles in the New York Post, Newsday, etc. Billpopp (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I saw the press coverage. Some disagree with me (and some don't), but having the local paper cover local acts doesn't seem like significant coverage. Local papers need to cover local events. That's what seperates them from USA Today. Regardless of their size, the Post etc. are still just covering local events. Honorable mentions don't pass WP:MUSICBIO, nor will being one of many voting members of the Academy. He may very well pass WP:MUSICBIO some day, but I don't feel that he has yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to San Diego Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails the notability guidelines for schools, established in WP:ORG. Specifically, there is no claim to notability, nor has the school received any significant third-party coverage for anything. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable for-profit show. Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:ENT. no extensive career. mainly passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I checked the Malay article before nominating, complete lack of sources there. If it has a well developed Malay article, I would not have nominated it. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
gnews archive covers from 1800 I think. I did not search recent gnews. please demonstrate which sources prove WP:ENT or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • As above, how does a feature film and 10 television dramas take your fancy for WP:ENT (let alone
WP:ENT says significant roles. Minor roles are not included, you could have 20 minor roles but doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. and it is difficult to verify the significance of roles. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume from the feature articles about her in national newspapers that she is no bit player. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
that is 1 article. still doesn't prove the extent of her roles. otherwise you're using synthesis of sources. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are her productions: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Pelakon utama means main actor; pelakon pembantu means supporting actor. Criticism of nominator deleted from here by self to avoid any hint of a personal attack. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
see WP:NPA. if such information appeared her non referenced Malay article it would have helped me decide to nominate or not. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Toughen up there and take some deserved criticism constructively. You've wasted a lot of people's time today with four ill-considered nominations. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I accept the result of any consensus. if this means articles get improved and kept, then that's good for WP. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right in one respect: the best outcome of an AfD is a better article gets kept. But that's no reason to nominate weakly sourced articles for deletion without properly applying WP:BEFORE. That just wastes everyone's time. In future, if you have problems with the sourcing of Malaysian-related articles, I'd be happy to help as a member of WP:Wikiproject Malaysia. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

All the citations have a relation to the subject, no reliable third-party sources have been added DemonBarberTodd (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 04:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This article appears to fail to meet WP:ORG. Though there are some references to this site in independent sources these appear to be part of a single PR push in 2007/2008 and relate more to the notability of Wilson starting the site whilst on tour rather than particular notability for the site as a portal; there are no Google News articles available for 2009. The article content appears promotional as tagged for the last 27 months but with little sign of on-going improvement or further refinement in sources. Ash (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unambiguous advertising for a commercial website, describing itself as a comprehensive website which provides a portal for real estate practitioners and service providers on a global level to connect, mentor, share experiences/expertice, network and help each other develop better business practices and relationships. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The article is pretty spammy, and the few independent sources that cover it, like the WaPo blog, don't say much about it to allow an encyclopedic rewrite. Pcap ping
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Since this is a largely uncited résumé, I'm going to go with this to try and gauge notability. She doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. She also doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, I think. We generally retain articles on cabinet ministers, but she was merely a deputy minister. We're not told what that means in Ecuador, but it could well be a civil service rather than a political office. The rest is made to sound impressive, but it's just the career summary of a UN bureaucrat not covered by independent sources. (And no, a capsule biography of a conference speaker is not really independent.) Biruitorul 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails to assert any real notability, only very basically covers the shop anyway, and could be read as an advertisement and/or self-promotion. A Google search only reveals 215 hits, most of which upon cursory inspection would fail to count as significant coverage. KaySL (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. Promotional article for retail establishment of dubious notability. Jennifer500 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton |  04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That's unfortunate; it doesn't invalidate the reasons she gave to delete the article, but I'll nonetheless strike her comment out. KaySL (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Radio personality lacking RS coverage, unclear assertions of notability. Article was PROD'ed again, but has already been deleted via PROD once. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

No mention of such a avian taxon/clade on Google Scholar. The cited tolweb link does not make such a claim either. At best it would appear to be a misunderstanding of a phrase that was used in some specific context. It would be WP:OR to interpret the diagram from one paper. In general with a neighbour-joining type of scheme there are N-1 clades for N terminal taxa. Shyamal (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a relevant figure from Hackett et al. It does contain the proposed superorder that this article is about, as does the tolweb site. The only difference is that it's called "water birds", not "higher waterbirds". I don't there's any misunderstanding.
Should this article be deleted? That depends, I think, on whether the listing of this group by Hackett et al. and at tolweb is enough for notability. (By the way, how connected are these groups? This long blog post discussing Hackett et al., perhaps too enthusiastically, calls the authors the "Early Bird Assembling the Tree-of-Life Research Project".) If the article should be kept, then I see questions such as what it should be called and how skeptical it should be. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is probably little disagreement on the existence of a well-marked waterbird clade, but a typical taxon article has to be on the basis of a recognized clade - typically one with a formal name. This appears to be a casual name, ill-defined and leaves little scope for multiple editors to collaborate and improve the article especially when one cannot find reliable sources using this exact term. Compare something similar like Manlike ape which has been redirected to Anthropoid ape, which makes for a legitimate entry as a widely used term but not as well defined as Hominidae. If there is some recent literature with a more formal name, this article could redirect there. Shyamal (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/112272 has a similar clade where they casually mention a clade of "3)‘aquatic and semi-aquatic birds’ e.g., pelicans, cormorants, herons,storks, cranes, rails, loons, penguins and albatrosses, as well as the less aquatic groups cuckoos, turacos and bustards)" - does this mean we can we have an article on "aquatic and semi-aquatic birds" ? Shyamal (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Knowledge:Notability (clades) existed, it would say "Generally, a clade only attains notability when a formal description and scientific name is published for it. Hesperian 05:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename or move information to another article Technically an undescribed and unnamed clade does not exist. A described but as yet unnamed clade could exist. Can this be moved and can the editor/contributor be helped out a bit with this instead of deleting? This is a highly cited and important study of birds in a major publication. This AfD deals only with the title, not the content. And I'm dealing with the article, mostly. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism, as neither source uses the term "higher waterbird", rather "water birds". Water bird is currently a redirect to Anatidae, which seems wrong. This proposed clade could be treated under that title, but I believe it is not sufficiently notable (unless we consider the consider the TOL piece to be significant coverage). Ucucha 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe rename. I'm far from an expert on bird taxonomy (and spending a few minutes browsing wasn't enough to fix that), so I'm not sure exactly what this should be called or which orders it should include, but (a) it appears that there is some such group, although I didn't read the Hackett et al. article cited by tolweb.org, and (b) it appears that the group is large enough to not easily be just merged into next-higher clade (which I think would be Neoaves). Dealing with articles describing classifications which are still being worked out by researchers is never easy, but I don't find throwing up our hands and deleting articles to be a particularly appealing solution. Kingdon (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps under one of the titles Lavateraguy mentioned (although it'd have been better if he had added citations for those), but the current title appears to be a neologism. In this context, it is surprising that we don't have an article on Neoaves, a well-supported and significant clade. From looking at the Hackett et al. tree, it appears Neoaves had a very rapid basal radiation (perhaps coinciding with K-T?), resulting in much of the current diversity of birds. It would seem most proper to have an article on Neoaves that discusses these points and the competing hypotheses on relationships among its orders, including clades such as the one we are discussing. Ucucha 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Certainly delete, as scarcely anybody thinks the recent bird phylogenies justify new taxonomies; it is still a fairly new hypothesis of marginal importance. As for near passerine, I would go for "keep" in a deletion discussion; the article probably just needs to be rewritten. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, now that Shyamal has said there's little disagreement on the existence of this clade and Lavateraguy has said it's been named (and unfortunately we have our choice of names). Consensuses in classification are too precious to ignore. I'm going to say something more about that at the TOL talk page. In response to Innotata's vote above, I'll add that we don't need to change our taxonomy. We can have articles about taxa that aren't part of the scheme we've adopted, such as Accipitriformes. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note that the problem really is that an average publication in a journal dealing with phylogenetics includes many clades among their illustrations. If a tree has N terminal nodes on it there are N-1 clades, most of which are unnamed, that are available for making articles on. The suggestion being made by many here is that there should be a disambiguation style page for "water birds" with citations to the Hackett paper noting that many of the groups are evolutionarily related but that would be a very different article. Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a non-WP:RS source mentioning several "good clades" - http://slybird.blogspot.com/2008/07/avian-relationships-what-do-we-know.html how many of these will make for an article that has more than a single source? (The "Seriama-Falcon-Parrot-Passerine" clade?) Shyamal (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we close this then and move it to a renaming discussion on the article talk page? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand. What "good clades" did you have in mind? "Good" according to Hackett et al., or in the sense that there's a consensus on it? We have a well-referenced article about the Cypselomorphae, and the blogger gave several references for the Mirandornithes, which we have just a stub for (by the same person who wrote Higher waterbird). I think you must be joking about the Seriema-Falcon-Parrot-Passerine clade, since the blogger expressed very strong doubts about it (and I would too, if my opinion counted for anything). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem really is that although there is implicit notability for species level taxa, there is a serious problem when it comes to un-named clades (with mere mentions of the group in a paper) - Cypselomorphae is a very different case, explicitly declared as a group in a paper that defines its circumscription (actually twice, once by Huxley and refined later by another worker). Even if it is not valid, (witness things like Ecdysozoa) it could be of historic importance and is well supported by more than one citation and much discussed in the scientific literature. "Higher waterbird" (wonder what "lower waterbird" is) is a very different case, the group is really not well defined except within the context of this study. Note how confusable it is with the other clade from literature "aquatic and semi-aquatic birds". One could for instance ask how the author name in this taxobox was for instance determined. Writing about this poorly defined clade should mean that one can write about the Seriema-Falcon-Parrot-Passerine clade based on even a passing mention of the grouping in just one paper. I can see the contents here being well covered under an avian phylogeny article. I mention "good clade" since this is an interesting neologism used on that blog-site that mirrors the old mihi-itch-era-taxonomists who would talk about "good species" (the mihi-itch is a cousin of OR in the systematics world) Shyamal (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
To emphasize the fact that this article represents WP:OR by interpretation/synthesis I can also suggest that this article should include "cuckoos, turacos and bustards" based on this paper. To further emphasize that it is OR, the author for this "taxon" should be Per G.P. Ericson (March 2008 versus June 2008 of Hackett et al.) Shyamal (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This non-reliable source calls the taxon Pelecanimorphae, a name Livezey and Zusi credit to Huxley, 1867 (but see below). It gives the following references for the clade, in addition to Hackett et al.:
  • Cracraft, J., F.K. Barker, M. Braun, J. Harshman, G.J. Dyke, J. Feinstein, S. Stanley, A. Cibois, P. Schikler, P. Beresford, J. Garcia-Moreno, M.D. Sorenson, T. Yuri, and D.P. Mindell (2004), Phylogenetic relationships among modern birds (Neornithes): toward an avian tree of life. in “Assembling the Tree of Life” (Cracraft, J., and Donoghue, M. J., eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Ericson, P.G.P., C.L. Anderson, T. Britton, A. Elzanowski, U. S. Johansson, M. Kallersjo, J.I. Ohlson, T.J. Parsons, D. Zuccon, and G. Mayr (2006), Diversification of Neoaves: Integration of molecular sequence data and fossils, Biol. Lett. 2, 543-547.
  • Gibb, G.C., O. Kardailsky, R.T. Kimball, E.L. Braun, and D. Penny (2007), Mitochondrial genomes and avian phylogeny: complex characters and resolvability without explosive radiations, Molecular Biology Evolution 24, 269-280.
  • Morgan-Richards, M., S.A. Trewick, A. Bartosch-Harlid, O. Kardialsky, M.J. Phillips, P.A. McLenachan, D. Penny (2008), Bird evolution: testing the metaves clade with six new mitochondrial genomes, BMC Evol. Biol. 8:20.
I haven't tried to look at them, so I don't know whether they all give the clade the same membership. (Livezey and Zusi's Natatores is almost the same: the difference is that it adds the grebes, flamingos, and tropicbirds.) But if there are several references for this clade or maybe something very close to it, then I think this could be a good article. Especially if I understood you correctly when you said above, "There is probably little disagreement on the existence of a well-marked waterbird clade"—did you mean these very species, as I thought, or were you allowing for significantly different circumscriptions of the waterbird clade?
Incidentally, I imagine the different authors sort out the relationships differently, but I don't think that's an obstacle. The easiest place to discuss those differences is in an article based on some kind of firm ground—"These species are all the extant descendants of a common ancestor. However, various authorities differ on which are closer to which, as follows."
I think certain things are irrelevant to the discussion of deletion. One is whether the article as it stands is OR—the question is whether it can be fixed to be well sourced and notable. Another is the falcon-etc. clade and the cuckoo-turaco-bustard clade, since those are proposed in only one paper each and I gather that at least the falcon one is dubious on technical grounds. Finding a good name is a bigger obstacle ("Pelecanimorphae" was defined quite differently by Livezey and Zusi, and I think in other ways by others, and I don't see a need to cover the history of this name). But I think that's secondary to deciding whether to have an article on this topic. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. From whatever lack of reliable citations we see, it looks like there is a need to rename the article, probably make the current article redirect to "water bird" or "waterbird", change the contents and remove the taxobox (since there is no reliable citation for the taxon-name and authority). AfDs for conceptual articles seem to require a change of concept to fix them! Circumscriptions (the contents) of a taxon can change while retaining a name which is why the term sensu is used to specify the usage. Shyamal (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This no longer appears to be a discussion about this article, but something personal. I can only do with the science. I am going to copy the article into my user space and possible write something useful later on, but there's no discussion going on here about this article. --[[

|IP69.226.103.13]] | Talk about me. 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything personal, it's not on my side. I think Shyamal and I are disagreeing civilly about whether this article should be deleted. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Me neither, our few little disputes have been net-positive and only helped settle matters (witness Urohidrosis) ! Actually I think the entire discussion above has been on the science and the focus of the discussion is on the absence of reliable sources for specific things (clade name, authority, circumscription) and the presence of reliable sources for other ideas (the relatedness of various groups). Shyamal (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Book by an unknown author, mentioned in another book by a folklorist, G. Legman, and, as far as I can tell, by no one else. The article's creator said on the talk page in removing my PROD that Legman "included a translation of it from French into English" in his book, but looking at the page citations provided shows that either that's not really true, or the Traité is a very, very short book. This does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK, such as being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GR 0550+08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally non-notable radio source. None of the designations listed in the article work in the standard SIMBAD astronomical database, a google search for the article title in quotes yields only the Knowledge page. No encyclopaedic content - this is an encyclopaedia not an astronomical catalogue. Icalanise (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There apppears to be no reliable sources establishing his notability. Ruslik_Zero 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Broadcaster does not appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Won a non-notable local award which does not seem to have garnered any significant coverage. matic 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. This announcer rarely gives his name, rarely self-hypes for recognition. However, as is documented and referenced in the article, he is heard in 36 markets in the United States. His notoriety is, in my opinion, being the most obnoxious voice in radio. Referenced, I am obviously not alone. A person having heard his car commercials (for currently close to a dozen major clients in the Los Angeles area alone) would lead one to ask, "Who the hell is that guy?" This article is here to answer that question. It is referenced by several independent sources including the Southern California Broadcasters Association--WHO GAVE HIM A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD!! and the University of LaVerne. Thats an industry independent body and an academic institution. Certainly there is sufficient independent referencing for an announcer that rarely identifies himself.Trackinfo (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm in a dispute with this user, but in fairness, I'm familiar with this announcer's work. He is the head of Dab-Row, a Southern California media buying company. His style is that of a carnival barker; the commercials are cold-voiced with no music bed. He used to do a lot of commercials for a couple of now-defunct dealers in my area. The style is absolutely grating but unforgettable. He's all over the radio dial. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as utter trash. If you want it kept, make it usable. There are no reliable sources in there, and it's written like garbage. "a radio announcing legend, even though his name has not become a household word." "heavily accented announcing is unmistakable and difficult to ignore. Some might call it obnoxious, but it has worked well for the numerous car dealers he has provided the voice for" Please Alio The Fool 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  03:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no good refs available. No substantial coverage of this person whatsoever has been identified. matic 03:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Bongo, it is not a proper action to delete additional references, weak as they may be (a commercial Facebook page), that this AFD is demanding, simply because you claim your browser cannot find them. You obviously have some interest (misguided as it may be) enjoying seeing articles deleted. I reverted back to the reference which clearly shows Dabrow, a picture of him appearing in person, name identification as the voice over announcer for the dealership and even mentions his quirky radio catch phrase.Trackinfo (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Hey, I found the article after the bastard actually gave his name over the air after what, a decade of going incognito. I wanted to find out who this guy is and there's a link that says this guy is 80 years old. He's got the style of somebody that old but . . . . the point is, I wouldn't find this stuff I you didn't have it here. But now you are planning to delete it? I just got in under the wire. And what, next week another surfer will get zip.OsamaPJ (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not call people bastards. We don't want to say bad things about living people unless we can source. Alio The Fool 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. A number of searches based on information and names in article provides nothing to use to guess or figure out the "hidden" name of this person, much less provide sourcing for anything Dabrow. Article provides no "answers" or additional information about this person, other than multiple promotional links to his company. If subject of article wants to keep his identity hidden, then Knowledge isn't the place to do it. Flowanda | Talk 10:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete what I said above and I don't know what "another surfer will get zip" means or why that means it should be kept. Alio The Fool 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) struck redundant !vote. matic 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GedUK  15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage in secondary sources for this software. Note that this isn't ESRI's Model Builder. Pcap ping 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to North American Union. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism for a topic on which there is already an article; no evidence that it is actually in use Orange Mike | Talk 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. no evidence of significant coverage nor multiple major roles. . Malay WP article doesn't reveal much either. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

*Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I crossed out my vote. Mkativerata is apparently more familiar with Malaysian pop culture, he did a better research and I believe, that the information could be useful. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
7 hits in gnews is not significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD isn't a ghit counter. In addition to the articles mentioned above (many of which she is a subject of), she is the sole subject of this Malay-language interview/article in a major newspaper (Utusan): 1.
that is for WP:GOOGLEHITS using google. there is no evidence of significant in depth coverage of this individual per WP:GNG. some coverage does not make a person necessarily notable. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice how you included the words "in depth" there. They don't appear in WP:GNG, although "in detail" does, but only as a factor relevant to significance, not a separate criterion. In any case, we have: (a) a lengthy article/interview in a national newspaper; (b) a lengthy news article about her alleged drunkenness; (c) an article in a national newspaper saying she will be hosting a new TV show and this article confirming it actually happened; and (d) an article about her onscreen lesbian kiss. How could this multi-faceted coverage not be significant? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
many of the 7 articles listed here are passing mentions rather than in depth coverage. 3rd point of WP:GNG clearly states The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources LibStar (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Have you even read the articles I've put up - especially those in my most recent post? Read them. If you can convince me that they involve mere passing mentions, especially the ones where she is mentioned in the title and the article is all about her, I will stand corrected. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
still google news includes some Malay language newspapers. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. Per earlier sources, plus story in the Malay Mail, opening with "The media circus of the widely reported romance between Fahrin Ahmad and Sharifah Nor Azean, or more popularly known as Scha Alyahya", showing that she's well known and that there are (non-English, possibly non-internet) sources we're not seeing. Holly25 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not have enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh the other options brought forth. –MuZemike 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable politician's spouse (nice enough lady in person, but not notable). Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The late Missouri Governor Warren Hearnes's wife Betty was a member of the Missouri House of Representatives. Therefore, she is entitled to her own article. Most of the spouses of the Vice President of the United States have have their articles. This is getting a little fuzzy. Thank you-RFD (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I went back and forth on this; but I see nothing notable about this particular first lady. Notable information in this article should be included in the article about the governor and/or on perhaps on a list of Wisconsin First Spouses. Some first ladies are notable in their own right, such as Maria Shriver and Marjorie Rendell. Jessica Doyle does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Quoting from the essay WP:ITSA: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Knowledge's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." Quoting from guideline WP:BIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" First ladies of the U.S. receive a good deal of national press coverage; Jessica Doyle hardly receives any local coverage in Wisconsin. --BaronLarf 05:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If an article on a political spouse has to be sourced mainly to her husband's own personal website, rather than to actual media, then that strongly suggests that she isn't particularly notable in her own right. While it's certainly not impossible for a state first lady to be notable enough for inclusion (frex, I'm Canadian and even I've heard of Silda Wall Spitzer and Maria Shriver), unlike a national first lady they certainly don't qualify as automatically notable just by virtue of the role. Delete unless actual sources can be added. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, and Knowledge itself. That being said, being the First Lady of an US state does not sound that non-notable. My opinion on this would be delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Blodance (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Jessica Doyle travels across the state promoting literacy, state pride, and local culture. She is notable in her own right as the First Lady of the State of Wisconsin. Plenty of other state's first ladies have their own articles- why not her? Thank you. --DevelopementEditor (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Jim Doyle. Sorry if that sounds sexist but she's only got any notability through her husband's political career. Like a lot of other first ladies she's famous only for being famous. Frankly most of the other articles ought to be merged too. NtheP (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The article on Marilyn Quayle got redirected to her husband's article. Then it was discovered she wrote some best selling books and the article had to be brought up. I opposed merging articles about people who turn out to be notable in their own right. Therefore, I agree with Developement Editor-the article should be kept-Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I agree with you in principle i.e spouses who are notable in their own right, should have their own article. However the whole point of this AfD is that Jessica Doyle isn't notable in her own right. What DevelopementEditor suggests doesn't appear notable to me. For example, would she be doing this work if her husband wasn't governor? Somehow I doubt it. NtheP (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to bring back the article on Betty Hearnes. She was the wife of Missouri Governor Warren Hearnes. But she had a separate political career by serving in the Missouri House of Representatives. Nthep you are right there is a principle involved. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD A10 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). NAC. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a book review, in the homework-posted-online style. This book may or may not be notable, but this entry doesn't make the case for it. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - Knowledge is not a repository for homework. —DoRD (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I initially fell foul of WP:BEFORE in prodding the article. The edits I've made (for the time being leaving in the creator's plot and character sections) and sources I've added, in my view, indicate the book is notable per WP:BK. It has been the subject of at least two independent reviews, and has won what appears to be a fairly major literary award. Excuse my no doubt substandard editing of this article, I've not edited articles on books before. If this is kept, the article should be moved to a better title. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Article already exists at Stones (novel), I only just found that now. You might want to simply move your edits there, and let this more poorly titled page die off. Barring that we can do a redirect, but this is a poorly capitalized redirect. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

no evidence of notability Oo7565 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

"The Very Best Of..." albums are almost never notable, and there is no evidence to suggest this one is any exception. Thparkth (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Certainly has the potential to be notable, if genuine sources can be added. But as originally written, it was pretty close to pointless. Redirect to Woody Guthrie discography. Keep per Gongshow's improvements. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This one's interesting, and I'm trying to make sense of it. The review that's provided also appears at Allmusic, which helps establish at least some notability. Going from there, a look at the review makes me think it's actually for a different "Very Best of" collection which has no review and features a completely different track listing (including the remixed bonus track referred to in the review). I don't know if these albums might somehow be related...I'll try to clean this up a bit to see if there's something worth salvaging.  Gongshow  07:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the Allmusic source and tried re-writing the article.  Gongshow  08:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gongshow's addition of a sourced critical reception section. A second review would be nice but considering the notability and historical significance of the artist, I don't believe it improves Knowledge by deleting. J04n(talk page) 09:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Lack of notability. Has not been convicted; he is not on list of top drug traffickers. His relationship to his brother and potential relationship to the cartel does not make him notable. Too much speculation to show notability. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But there is no information to write an biographical article about this person. You have written a news story. Show me a source with in depth biographical information so we can write about his life. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the article as it stands right now is a biography, rather than a news article. It's not about his arrest. It outlines his role in the creation of the Beltran-Leyva Cartel, his part in the split from the Sinaloa Cartel, some context about his role in the organization, and then his arrest. There is room for more expansion, I agree, but there is no deadline and the simple fact that more work needs to be done isn't a valid reason for deletion. — Hunter Kahn 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep,, Carlos and his 4 brothers head one of the 5 drug cartels that have flooded the whole country with brutal violence and contributed to NOTABLE casualties above 16,000 deaths. He does not "have to" be convicted in order to be notable. The article is well referenced and it only needs his birth date and other minor details. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - the coverage is enough to establish notability. Any futher issues with the article are editting concerns and not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. The question of a split, as raised by Angie Y., can be pursued on the talk page if desired. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable children's video series, tagged for lacking sources for nearly a year. Having searched for sources myself, all I can find is sites offering these videos for sale - I can't find any significant coverage of them by reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep and seperate into individual articles The series is very poipular, most of the cast members from both of my favorite videos in the series are still alive, and each movie deserves a seperate article! Angie Y. (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

this information is covered in individual articles. A separate one is not necessary. raseaC 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course they do...condolences! A unifying theme! In no case, did he ever say "I am happy they died!" Judith Merrick (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Now this is a reason that I respect unlike some of the baseless reasons. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I respect your reasoning, which is better than some, some news reports devote 3 or more sentences. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Try telling that to the 7 articles/events that this referenced. Things like the attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan, the worst loss of CIA personnel in more than 2 decades or the earthquake in Haiti which killed thousands. Your reasoning is wrong. This is not a list of non-notable events. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that the tragic events are not notable; rather, we are saying that Obama's expressions of condolences are not notable. Big difference. —DoRD (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I meant. ~DC Talk To Me 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete My condolences to the editor who wrote the article, but the list of condolences made by a politician seems a bit much. Not notable. The condolences, not the events. Perhaps the author could change some aspects of the article, and come up with something else to include this in. DD2K (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: Although it looks hopeless, let me say for the record in case the article is deleted and no trace remains, that this article (though unfinished) had 7 sections about 7 events and describes the condolences that President Obama offered. Each section had a very reliable reference. Nobody has questioned the references as being unreliable or tabloids. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Being reliably sourced is not the sole criteria for inclusion on the Knowledge. Tarc (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


PLEASE - SPECIAL REQUEST: PLEASE DO NOT SPEEDILY DELETE THIS. THE MOST LEGIMATE CONCLUSION IS A NORMALLY PROCESSED REQUEST. AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THERE ARE 50 DELETE VOTES OR 48 HOURS Judith Merrick (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment to creator Chill, d00d. ;)
It is unlikely to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If it gets deleted, under normal circumstances, it would be 7 days later(unless an admin choose to close it early, of course).
If you feel that the result is likely to be a Delete, but you are confident that you can improve it so it won't get deleted in the future, you can ask the article to be Userfied to you, so you can edit and improve the article, and when it becomes good enough to keep, you can recreate it in the main namespace.

And please try avoid using ALL CAPS - it is not very good Wikiquette. :) Cheers, Blodance (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Judith, I'm not an admin, but this is looking like an obvious early close candidate to me, because its a snowball of deletes.--Milowent (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reasons are so obvious and already layed out several times so I won't bother repeating them.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure the article creator means well, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Yes all these condolances happened, but that doesn't make them notable enough to gather into an article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As if Barack Obama was the first national leader to deliver condolences. I voted for the man, but I didn't agree to worship him. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete a president of a nation offering condolences is not inherently notable. the events may have this mentioned if the individual condolence has some degree of notability, but this subject is similar to (my favorite fake example), movies parodied by mad magazine. its not inherently notable to be parodied by mad, though some parodies may become notable. this is routine diplomatic and ritual behavior from a public figure. wed need one for each president in our history, along with every other public figure of national stature in all of history. why obama? that makes it pure POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment while i sincerely welcome new editors (i was new only a year ago), i want to point out that claiming the nominator has a history of (unduly) deleting articles is not assuming good faith. they have been editing for 3 years, with 4000 edits, relatively few reversals. the article creator has been editing under this name for less than a month. if you are truly this new, you might consider giving yourself time here to explore more before trying to sound too authoritative. i know i am very hesitant, as a relative newbie, to create any kind of article other than concrete, easily defined ones, like a person, a book, a place, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - This miserable gathering of snowflakes is unlikely to survive the flames, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a completely non-sensical article. Compiling a listing of the times a world leader has expressed their condolances to various groups and individuals serves absolutely no purpose. Rapier1 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The only claim to notability is that this person has been an attorney for notable people. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources claiming he is significant in his field. Article also appears to have been created to provide a link into another article written by the same editor, The Restoring Music Foundation, which is also at AfD. Wine Guy Talk 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree that the notability appears to be by association only. --Stormbay (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete the transitive property doesn't work for notability. Creator is trying to make a walled garden. ~DC Talk To Me 02:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - he is not a notable attorney, period. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable lawyer. None of the claims appear to be backed by reliable sources, and even if they were, notability isn't inherited. -- Bfigura 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per above- parts kinda read like a legal ad Ryan shell (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability issues have been resolved. Citations and links now included. Subject is found in independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing notability in his field.Pea12345 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Pea12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment I looked over the links that were added, and I'm not really seeing any that establish notability. Most of them are brief mentions that either state that he represented his client on such-and-such a charge, or a paragraph giving notice that he have a seminar. None of the ones I saw gave any in-depth coverage that would meet the "non-trivial" requirement. (And establishing that he represents notable people probably isn't sufficient, given that notability isn't inherited.) -- Bfigura 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Citations and links provide evidence notability in the field. Lawyer's are not like other professionals who receive significant coverage by main stream media, and niche publications and speaking engagement should suffice to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.180.84 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I know Philip E. Daniels. He is one of the industries top music attorneys. I have made a full notation on this walled garden incident (it also contains some very insightful notes from Pea54321 regarding this matter, who I know for a fact to be Phil himself) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Musicedbloggerman. I would like to petition that this article be kept. His additions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has been in the business a long time and has proven himself to be a notable attorney by representing some of musics best talent as well as becoming a thought leader in the industry as a whole. He is the real deal, I believe his new citations prove that beyond reason. --Cdpurifoy (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment It appears that someone needs to produce some definitive proof of the notability of one of the industries top music attorneys. I can't find much. It still looks like a good candidate for removal despite the assertions. A couple of credible third party publications citing instances of important activity would have more weight than the petitions to keep.--Stormbay (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Respectfully disagree Stormbay. Lawyers tend to feature in niche publications. I have updated the article to include coverage in Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, which are high profile credible publications for the entertainment industry, as well as The Legal 500 (The Who's who of the law). Coverage is non-trivial, having been quoted in The Washington Times on entertainment-related issues.Pea12345 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑