Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 6 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete under G7. — ξ 07:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

As creator. Picked up the wrong people (other than the redirect person). Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tx ... yes, that is what I was trying to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus S.G. ping! 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Oban derailment (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 non-fatal train derailment which currently fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events). Purely news material, unless or until something else emerges, and in the field of rail incident investigations, that's not normally within 7 days. I'll withdraw if some spectacular cause is determined within 7 days, (e.g. a terrorist incident), but if this was a 'routine' derailment, albeit in a bit of an exciting position, I don't see how this article does not fall squarely into the 'wait and see' category of when to write an article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a good think this has been written quickly as it gives a good overview of the accident. It may not be the biggest story in the world but it's still big enough to warrant a article in my opinion. Knowledge (XXG)'s full of articles about fairly insignificant things, another one isn' t going to do any harm, especially when it's on an issue people affected may want to find more out about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.106.179 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are plenty of sources, though, granted, they are almost without exception news stories, but this seems unusual enough to merit some coverage. Perhaps there's somewhere suitable it can be merged and redirected to? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    I've added one line to the West Highland Line article, that's about all that is justified at this time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Article renamed to Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fortunately, "No major injuries were reported" in this incident that happened on Sunday evening, June 6. Mandsford 01:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. At the risk of being a crystal ball, I suspect that this will close the line for at least a week - see section A4 of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (railway incidents) (although admittedly, this is a proposed guideline). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Is closing a line for a week evidence of notability on its own? (rather than an indication of major damage etc) It strikes me that it's only the remote location that means it might take that long to re-open the track, so I wonder what logic there is in saying that if this had happened in a more accessible area leading to quicker re-opening, the accident is somehow less notable, which is what A4 syggests, and which is why maybe it's still not a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    The incident meets notability criterion B3 anyway - so clear criterion for Keep. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The train didn't just derail, both carriages caught fire. Lack of deaths does not mean lack of notability. Also, a signalling system specifically installed to warn of rockfalls failed to prevent the derailment. The accident has been reported as far away as Australia, showing international coverage and adding to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) - Update - the rocks fell from a position below the protection of the tripwires. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    Fair point on the international coverage of the news (it is just a reprint of the wire story though), however, you seem to be making a giant leap of original research and improper speculation in asserting even before the investigation, that there has been a notable failure of the specifc rock fall warning system in use on this line, and thus by extension, this is already a notable accident because it will lead to major changes (and if this doesn't happen, then per WP:EVENT, it's highly unlikely this is a notable event). Infact, at present, the article does not even include a referenced statement backing up the claim that this accident should have been prevented by that special signalling system, this appears to be the work of editors putting two and two together to make five. Wikinews is the place to go if editors want to engage in investigative journalism, where they can become accredited reporters. As for this being a notable incident despite there being no fatalitites, when reading the sources, I think the severity of the incident has been exaggerated in this article. Scaryness of the situation and wow factor of "Major Incident" declarations aside, in actual fact, we are talking about, from 60 passengers, a few "walking wounded" who were hospitalised "as a precaution", according to the authorities. I think the same is probably true of whether or not fire played a major part in the incident or not, we have some reports that it caught fire, with one passenger describing a "ball of flame" or even an "explosion", yet no reports seem to be saying that fire was either part of the accident, or caused any injuries or any difficulty in evacuation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note WP:TWP, WP:UKRail and WP:SCO notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The line was meant to be protected by warning systems for a landslide, 8 people went to hospital, heavy recovery equipment will be needed in a remote area, a fairly major road is closed and both carriages caught fire. I think it warrants inclusion in its own right, and also because the record that Knowledge (XXG) provides is incomplete and inaccurate if it doesn't record modern accidents that in the past would have been much more deadly. In summary notable in it's own right for the accident and disruption as well as being neccessary to keep Knowledge (XXG) as an accurate record.Dolive21 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The line itself is signalled using a radio based signalling system, which is due to be replaced by a new european standard (ERTMS) system. This accident may have a bearing on the testing and acceptance (currently underway in Wales) of the proposed system by Network Rail. There are no track circuits or other methods of indicating the presence and location of a train on these systems. Added by Paul P 7 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.68.254 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into Falls of Cruachan railway station, West Highland Line or even Pass of Brander stone signals. Neither the ERTMS trial or lack of track circuits are relevant to the accident and neither confers notability on the accident. The line will be closed while the train is recovered and any track damage repaired, but this incident is not notable enough for a separate article. Any extended closure will be due to the remoteness of location rather than the seriousness of the incident. As far as I can tell from news reports, the only thing that seems to have burned is fuel, possibly from punctured tanks, and the fire either did not spread to the main body of the train, or was not sustained by the train (non flammable materials?). Photographs suggest that the train has not suffered significant fire damage, and there's no reports of burn injuries that I am presently aware of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, if it were true that the apparent failure of the specific rock fall detectors was a cause of this accident, and the investigation did lead to changes in the safety systems, then it would per normal convention, become a notable accident in of itself. But this is a vague area as to how much change it needs to be, because there isn't a single rail accident report ever that does not make some reccomendations. However, as I said above, it is improper to write the article when there is simply no evidence that this is the case at all yet, and all we have at this time is an article about a non-fatal derailment caused by a landslide. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    There is now evidence from the train driver confirming that the train hit boulders. But in any case, this is exactly what one would expect in this location. When I first saw the news item last night, simply saying "Glasgow-Oban train derailed", I immediately thought "Pass of Brander"... and it was. Incidentally, this is not a normal landslide (slippage of a bulk quantitiy of earth); the problem with this location is vast numbers of individual granite boulders scattered over the slopes of Ben Cruachan which rise up to 3000 feet above the line, which periodically roll down either individually or in small groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperman 42 (talk • contribs)
  • Very strong keep as it is the worst derailment in Scotland this year Ggoere (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, May be notable for the moment but no chance of making it into a full article no chance of raising to B-class or GA status delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
    • With respect, that's quite a weak argument. We have many thousands of articles on notable subjects that have no hope of ever gaining GA status. If we were delete everything that would never make GA class, we'd be deleting thousands upon thousands of articles- to quote WP:GA, "Adding good and featured articles and lists gives a total of 13,904 articles (about 1 in 239)", so by your standards, we'd be deleting 90-something% of our articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, the GA criteria have nothing to do with notability. However, on a meta-level, a GA is expected to be - 1. Well written, 2. Accurate and verifiable, 3. Comprehensive, 4. Neutral, 5. Stable, 6. Contain images if possible. I cannot think of any reason why we would ever keep articles that have no hope of meeting these criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as this accident involved quite a significant number of people and resources. Indeed, this continues. As far as I know, this will be quite a lengthy line closure and investigation, which will cause widespread disruption. I know some people doubt if "major incident" status means it's notable, and although of course it does not automatically mean that, remember that such incidents are quite rare in Scotland especially involving trains. The emergency services and the media don't react like this to a matter of insignificance. Macintosher (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a good article and this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls - the line runs below the slopes of Ben Cruachan which is dotted with prehistoric granite boulders. Hence the unique warning wire screen which was installed soon after the line was opened in 1880. There have been previous derailments here for the same reason, and it is likely that this will not be the last. The latest incident is clearly relevant to the special safety measures, which already have a separate article as a unique feature of British railways. While a shorter article might have sufficed, now there is a good one in some detail, I see no reason to remove or shorten it. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Unique/Extraordinary != Notable. And much of what you've said here hasn't been covered by the soures about this accident anyway (I would like confirmation for example that "this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls"). Now that we know from Network Rail that the unique Pass of Brander system was not designed to prevent this incident, which has otherwise been a minor derailment, then where is the claim of independent notability of this accident, over any other similar one? Unless or until there is proof this accident itself causes significant changes, then it fails WP:EVENT. If it is simply interesting in the whole field of rockfalls and British railways, it can be covered elsewhere quite adequately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I must say there are an awful lot of bad !votes going on here, on both sides. The heart of the question is not whether it is well written or not, or whether it has potential to become a GA or whatever, but whether it is notable. Here the guidance should be WP:EVENT, which emphasises that to become more than routine there should be long lasting coverage or precipitate changes to the way things are done and so on. We have no way of knowing whether that will be the case at the moment. None of the reports I have read so far even seem to mention anything to do with signalling or anything else so it is way to early to be able to tell yet. At the moment it is a news story, and not even a major one at that - many more stories have received much greater coverage today. To become more than just a news story and justify an article we need much stronger evidence to explain why this is basically prima facie notable - at the moment it is all based on conjecture. As such I must say delete. (Bear in mind that I have written another article on a train incident where no one was even injured. However, in that case I had the luxury of writing a few years after the event with the benefit of numerous in depth sources which analysed what had happened, not just a flurry of newspaper reports.) Quantpole (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Incubate or userfy for now. At present it marginally fails WP:EVENT; however, the chance of this changing in the near future seems large enough to justify incubation or userfication pending the appearance of longer-term coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Alzarian, there's still 5 days to go before the AfD expires, which may be enough time for further details to emerge. I have the ability to userfy the article myself if it gets deleted. Expect the RAIB to take a year to 18 months to publish its report. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - many sources covering it, and that's before the specialist press get to it. Seems notable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    See WP:109PAPERS. This is getting news coverage, because it is a news event. As for specialist sources, I think we all know that they cover any incident, 80% of which Knowledge (XXG) would never cover, in great detail. That's their role, it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s role. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    WP:109PAPERS is a proposed guideline. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    And most of its content gets wide support, and is pretty much duplicated by WP:EVENT anyway. WP:ATA is an essay, it doesn't mean it is not widely considered as basic good practice at AFD. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What is this I don't even. And Wikipedians get all surprised when good contributors are running for the hills. Enough. Here goes:
    • This isn't notable. I think a certain breed of Wikipedians think that if they repeat this enough that it'll become true. Respected media outlets like the BBC around the world thought that this was important enough to merit reporting. Who are we to argue?
    • "This is a news event." Well, duh, yes it is; stick a {{current}} template on it and move on. Every event in history would have, at some point, been a news event of sorts (and if it wasn't generating a bunch of news articles you just know that the procedurebators here would AFD it for "fails WP:RS and WP:V" or whatever. Fine, roughly six people are going to care about it in five years' time, but isn't that a damn good reason to keep it? You know, if you think that we should stop including things, however well sourced, just for being obscure then well, Citizendium is over there, seeya! For all its faults, the great thing about Knowledge (XXG) is that it does cover obscure things like this, and in many cases is the only organised (let alone well-sourced!) collection of information about them.
    • "This is a breaking event and we don't know all the facts yet. Yup, and I can think of other current events about which we do not know all the facts just yet that people don't seem to be in a huge hurry to delete (in before WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + someone nominating that one for deletion). It's not entirely complete for now, but who cares? Fortunately, this is a wiki, and as new information becomes available we can include it into the article. Hooray for the wiki encyclopedia!

      tl;dr: It's well-written. It's well-sourced. It's notable enough that several media outlets think it's worth reporting. What else do you want? I know I'm going to get a bunch of WP:ALPHABETSOUP thrown at me for this, but fuck it: Keep. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • LOL. Yes, I am told President Obama is due to visit the crash site next week. Turn it in will you. You could have simply said 'keep - sourced, well written' without including all that other irrelevant stuff tbh. Still, I see you registered in 2005, and that screed has 'Knowledge (XXG) values of 2005' stamped all over it. Only it's 2010 now, and the ideas about what constitues notability beyond news values have moved on considerably. Knowledge (XXG) is no longer the dumping ground for anything and everything that is simply sourceable. If anything, rather than editors here needing to move to Citizendium, maybe a few need to move to Wikinews, or need to start focussing on the glaring recentism in topics like this - note as you will the paltry details of the similar incidents on this exact line that Knowledge (XXG) has. I'm open to quality arguments to keep the article, but 'BBC reported it' and 'it's not doing any harm, stop harming Knowledge (XXG)'s mojo' are not quality arguments, particularly not when the deletion rationale is WP:EVENT. As for the 'Knowledge (XXG) keeps obscure stuff' angle, well, in the case of railway incidents, no, it does not, and whether this article is kept or not, the vast majority of railway incidents that are reported will never have articles. Not in a million years. And rightly so. MickMacNee (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • missingthepoint.jpg. I wasn't saying that this event is as important as the BP oil spill. My point was that saying an article should be deleted because it documents a current event, the consequences of which are quite unclear, is stupid. Whine all you want about "glaring recentism", but you know, I can think of a whole lot of stuff about which I wished people had written about in great detail back when it happened. I take the long view, and history will not look kindly on you if you think that "this happened recently and we're not totally sure about all the facts just yet so we shouldn't be documenting it".

          "t's not doing any harm" is a perfectly good argument, actually a really good one thank you for keeping a well-sourced, well-researched article. "top harming Knowledge (XXG)'s mojo" -- well, if by that you mean "don't stop Knowledge (XXG) being as great as it is for information on obscure subjects", well sure. I'm happy with that. Hell, give me the t-shirt that says "reading about obscure stuff you never even knew you cared about is AWESOME". Maybe that's just the "Knowledge (XXG) values of 2005" speaking right there. You know, that whole idea that if someone is writing good and informative and well-sourced and informative articles about whatever subject, then that's a damn good thing for everyone. I'll take those values over bureaucratic deleting-shit-just-because-we-can any day. Hey, ignore me. I've gotta go tell some kids to get off my lawn, so I'll leave it here, k? :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          Oh it's good to have you back Lewis :) -mattbuck (Talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          LOL. It's not me you need to worry about. You can say what you like in here, you can shout from the rooftops about how it should be the primary purpose of Knowledge (XXG) to document the vital details of every zebra that was ever born, it doesn't make your actual argument any more relevant to the reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          Don't flatter yourself; I'll lose exactly three seconds of sleep tonight worrying about you. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          Likewise. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a exact news report, it's more of a description of events. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a significant incident within the context of Scotland, evidenced by the (for this early stage) detailed reporting in The Scotsman and others, and the impact it has had on both the A85 road and the West Highland Line itself. Whilst there were thankfully no fatalities, there may still be safety or operational related outcomes from the investigation which can only bolster and expand an already useful article as they become available. A brief mention of the incident is useful in both the Pass of Brander Stone Signals article and the West Highland Line article but any more would upset the balance of those articles. However, from these brief mentions there should be an opportunity for interested Knowledge (XXG) readers to find out more about the incident. This article, where further information can be gathered and expanded, is the place for that. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    See WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL and WP:CRYSTAL. The Scotsman etc are reporting this in detail because it has news value. But frankly, even just looking at the latest titbits added today, the fact that you need a big crane to clear a train which is in a difficult position, or that the A85 wasn't built to support such large vehicles, while it might be interesting and newsworthy (some might say bloody obvious, but that's by the by), it is not, and never will be, of encyclopoedic value, in the way you suggest. This is just a fact, and given the passage of time, it will become more and more obvious as the years pass, which is something WP:EVENT was written to cover. If this article were to be editted to remove the daily news crap, to cut it down to the encyclopoedic matters of record, it would be barely a section or two long, easily accomodated elsewhere, while not breaking WP:EVENT so blatantly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    So writing about things in great detail (while we still can!) is against MickMacNee policy. Hooray! Obvious? Obvious to who? Obvious to someone who isn't an engineer and doesn't know the area in intimate detail? Obvious to someone in 20 years' time who might want be interested in derailments that happened in their area? Obvious to someone in 50 years' time researching the history of a road in which they're interested? Seriously dude, stop. Just stop. And for your future reference, if you're going to try and look more intelligent than you really are: that's encyclopaedic. You're welcome. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    Obvious enough to anybody who realises that WP:EVENT is not some half-witted bollocks I just invented yesterday, for the sole purpose of stopping people looking for interesting stuff in 20 years time. If you've got such a massive problem with the arguments I am advancing here, and it really appears you do, then I suggest you go and try and get that guideline deleted, because unless or until you do, I won't be convinced by your ranting and raving and blind insistance that Knowledge (XXG) is something it isn't, or that the nasty man trying to enforce policy here should just stop being so MEAN and leave the poor defenceless article ALONE!!!!. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note WP:TIS informed. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lewis Collard!'s well reasoned opinion.--Milowent (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Hyperman 42. --John (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thom Bartek (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 biography which fails WP:POLITICIAN, unsuccessfully ran for a marginally notable office Royalbroil 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Personally, I think this should be deleted, but that is not my job as closing admin.---Balloonman 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not meet the GNG requirements. Searching for Google News shows nothing for this (tiny) location. It is likely that the only site of interest is the website the creator originally included (http://www.holidaycottageinkerio.web.officelive.com). Possible mention in Ploërdut but not an article in its own right. PROD was removed so raising to AfD as recommended. Fæ (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe; maybe not. I can't even be sure of the spelling of the place's name. In an 1870 dictionary of place names in Morbihan, it's listed with the spelling Kerrio and not with the spelling Kerio. On the Google Maps and Michelin maps of the area, the name of the road that leads to the (unnamed on the maps) group of buildings is given as "Kerrio"; and in the Google hits that unambiguously refer to the relevant location, "Kerio" and "Kerrio" appear about equally. In any event, there seems to be (or to have been) at least 22 places in Morbihan named Kerio or Kerrio, so some better disambiguation would appear to be needed—perhaps "Kerrio , Ploërdut". (On the main question of this AfD, I'm ambivalent: The article was certainly created as an advertisement for a rental cottage, and I can't find any current information that clearly refers to either Kerio or Kerrio as the name of a hamlet at this location, as opposed to the name of a road or of the cottage. The French WP appears to be innocent of any mention of the place . Before I'd recommend keeping the article, I'd need to to see at least one unambiguous source verifying Kerio's existence as a recognized populated place.) Deor (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  23:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Small hamlets may be notable per WP:OUTCOMES#Places, but I don't think individual farms are. I had a feeling that this would turn out to be a named farmstead. So far, we have Kerio, Kério, and Kerrio as the possible name of this place; anyone want to try to a fourth version? Deor (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jordan White (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)

He seems not to have made any senior appearances--I suspect he therefore does not meet Athlete, but it;s not my usual subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---Balloonman 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pathfinder Platoon (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 a 30 man unit of the 16 Air Assault Brigade. There are no reliable sources that confirm the information in the article. and as its a military sub unit it would be better mergd into the parent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Sweeney (talk • contribs) 09:36, 29 March 2010

Keep Its inherent notability is also reinforced by the fact that it has been the subject of at least two TV documentaries (Defence of the Realm and Sky's more recent efforts). As to size even today is established at rather larger than 30 men and it carries on the tradition of several companies from the second world war. The unit has a unique role and incorporating into an article on 16 Air Assault would unbalance such an article and would be dubious anyway given the pathfinders' previous service with 1 and 6 Divs, 16 and 44 Bdes and 5 Bde.Tragino (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete OR Merge with 16 AA Brigade even though I have tried to add reliable sources to the article. I still believe it is not notable, as only a platoon of 30 men (need a source to prove otherwise). This platoon has no connection with the 1st Airborne Division or the 6th Airborne Division. Whose pathfinder units were the 21st Independent Parachute Company and the 22nd Independent Parachute Company. The post war 16th Parachute Brigade had the No. 1 Guards Independent Parachute Company as its pathfinder unit which went onto become G Squadron Special Air Service. I may be wrong but I don't think it has ever been deployed as a unit by itself but always as part of a larger formation 16th Air Assault Brigade. Other much larger units in 16 AA Brigade do not have their own articles. Its not mentioned at all on the British Army's Parachute Regiment page and on 16 AA Bde's page its called the Pathfinder Group--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Recce force lead elements are now attached to most Bde HQ elements so I'd question notability. Availability of reliable sources is open to debate as well. ALR (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination repaired by -- saberwyn 04:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) -- saberwyn 04:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (or Merge) - sources do exist, such as ,, - I'm not sure how reliable they are, but a Google Books search also finds some coverage. This doesn't appear to be a hugely notable sub-unit though, so I wouldn't object to a merge into 16 Air Assault Brigade, which might be the most appropriate move here. Robofish (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with parent unit's article. An obviously notable organization that has garnered substantial independent coverage and mention they are still a small group whose existence is defined by the larger structure of its parent unit. This is demonstrated by the fact that most refs cite the subject not as an independent entity but a piece of the larger Brigade force. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Have I Got News for You episodes. Tone 14:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Have I Got News For You (Series 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)

Unnecessary information, doesn't seem to sit well with the guidelines in Knowledge (XXG):What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wentomowameadow (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Without sources, we cannot accept the claims as factual. Yes, there may be some systemic bias against non-English sources, but this is an encyclopedia, one of our corner stones is verifiability.---Balloonman 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Topless (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 website, unreferenced for 3 years, claim to notability unsupported Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep According to a news report on the site, it's the most successful non-commercial site in Tokyo. The fact that this link has been removed the article because of WP External Link rules makes it no less reliable or notable. And if you enjoy zaftig Asian ladies as much as I do, and you're not at work, feel free to give it a look. You can thank me later: Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It says claims to be the first adult site in Asia, so it does claim notability... whether that's right or not, needs verification/sourcing... 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The site has been around for 15 years, an eternity for a porn site. It has a traffic ranking of about 5000 in Japan according to Alexa and some 13% of its audience in the US, pretty impressive numbers for a non-commercial site in a niche field and with little advertising. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - these assertions of notability would be stronger with verifiable citations to some reliable sources. The website just cannot be used as a source for these assertions about itself. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Hi, Kenny. To be honest, I have little faith that this one will be saved. I think it should be, and can be, but it's beyond my means. The site might not be a "reliable source" for its claim, but I can state from personal knowledge that it's been online since '95. Also, that it's a highly popular site. Also, that all the high-profile models and actresses mentioned (and removed) in the article have made appearances at the site. Also, that it's nearly impossible that the site has not received multiple coverage in the Japanese press-- either the very large near-mainstream tabloid-style publications, or in publications specializing in the big-bust genre. Again, I can't prove any of this, I can just state it from personal knowledge. I know that this satisfies nothing at an AfD, and I've been anticipating this AfD since I first saw the article started... The only thing near-passable I've found are the citation to the book I added to the article, the TV news video (which really ought to pass as secondary coverage, and a "reliable" claim of "notability", but is discounted on a technicality). There's also this column which mentions that it has received over a million hits: Other than that, I'm resigned to seeing the article deleted unless there is someone who has access to the articles there are bound to be on the site... A comparable English-language/US site would far easier to source & save, and I think this a good example of how applying "notability" criteria "evenly" to all subjects-- as if they were equally easy to source-- results in biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, this is an issue that arises repeatedly with Japanese subjects, due to the fact that good Japanese sourcing is notoriously absent from the Internet. Naturally, it's an issue that is compounded with niche subjects. That editors who are aware of this, and the bias it creates, can blithely cite GNG without noting that it states right at the top of the page it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" is cynical at best. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Special pleading, I'm afraid. Occasional exceptions maybe but you're arguing for "repeated" exceptions for Japanese articles. The internet is not the point. Notability requires multiple reliable sources -- I'm old-fashioned enough to think they are more likely to be on paper! This is the English-language Knowledge (XXG), so naturally English-language sources are preferred and if not, translations are requested. That seems sensible rather than cynical to me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I didn't mean to imply you were being cynical above. You give indications of listening to reason, rather than giving a drive-by, two-word link to a guideline (three words, counting "Delete"). Of course I'm arguing for repeated exceptions for Japanese articles, because they are being subjected to criteria set up by English-speaking editors with an unintentional bias towards English-language sourcing. Of course there is Japanese print sourcing for these subjects. That's my point. It's out there, and it proves the subject is "notable" by WP standards, so how do we find it? English-language print-sourcing is by-and-large either available, or indexed online. Not so with Japanese. Even mainstream newspapers, when they do put their articles online, remove them and block them from archiving. Even Deletion-inclined editors who work in Japanese subject areas are aware of this. To sneer at this as "special pleading" I'm afraid indicates indifference to biased coverage in support of arbitrary guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
            • You can always claim WP:IAR... on the basis of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and WP:BIAS. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, right at the top of GNG, it says "common sense" and "exception" are to be applied. I believe subjects in most non-English languages are placed at a disadvantage by interpreting GNG strictly. But frankly, even as a follower of this site since... 1997, I think... I would not have started the article unless I had solid claim of "notability", or plenty of secondary coverage. So, even though I think the site is actually "notable" I won't be surprised to see it deleted, due to this English-biased guideline... I won't be surprised if eventually such sourcing does come to light though, and would be happy to restart the article at that time... Maybe Jimbo could offer an all-expenses-paid scholarship to Tokyo to engage in the research ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No evidence of satisfying GNG. EuroPride (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment One would hope that the most successful non-commercial site in Tokyo, possibly the first adult site in Asia, online for 15 years, subject of an English-language news story, would at least receive a fair hearing, rather than be removed by a bland, bureaucratic adherence to procedure with no concern over the bias that creates. But then, to have that hope, one would have to not have become accustomed to the way "Delete" votes are tossed about by those who openly proclaim they are here to remove content from the "not censored" "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply - Could you please provide a link to show where either I or the other editor who voted 'delete' proclaimed that we are here to remove content? Unless of course you were being dishonest in an attempt to undermine any opposing opinions. Thanks in advance! EuroPride (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Reply Yes I can, but it's off-topic, so I'll reply at your talkpage. Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I think this discussion actually rather fruitfully illustrates the point The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth. What Dekkappai says about this site may well be true, and indeed for the sake of argument I am happy to concede that it is. But without reliable sources we do not know it to be true. And without knowing it to be true, we can't include it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          • ...and by following this to its logical conclusion, we have FAs on Simpsons episodes, while articles Academy Award-winning Japanese films should be deleted. Yes, I've started articles on such films, and the sourcing that I was able to find online is little better than it is at this one... Admittedly this particular article is not on a subject on a par with an Academy Award-winner, but can we recognize that following these (English-speaking) editor-created rules without taking into consideration the subject results in bias? I think it's a real issue that needs adressing, but I'm not a policy-minded enough editor to go into it... Dekkappai (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that the site meets the notability requirements of WP:WEB, or that it can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question The ("NSFW") video linked to above is rather amusing, I think unintentionally. I recommend it to (and only to) the tolerant. It also makes clear assertions of notability. I'd inexpertly guess that it comes from some British broadcasting company, and that if its provenance could be clarified it could be a "RS" for certain claims. A rather desperate Channel 4 production, perhaps? Does anyone familiar with rather dodgy British television have any idea? (Perhaps the style of voice-overs gives it away, and with dribs and drabs of evidence one could identify the likely series, and thereafter the exact episode, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • My guess would have been Japanorama, but I don't see TT listed as a subject there. HBO (I think) had a series in the '80s with an elderly, droll British chap exploring the randy side of various countries... some series like that, I suspect... What confuses me is that this little clip is being ignored... I guess because the site which hosts it is apparently in violation of copyright... big deal, it still proves it exists-- secondary coverage, with claims of notability... Dekkappai (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Recall that notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Can we say that this clip is from a "reliable source" (that is, one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy")? No, because we have no idea where it's from. I'd say that it's clearly from a late-night porno filler programme, Japanorama rather than Panorama. I note that the website is seen only in passing, so it's not "significant" either. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, well I'd reply, but then you'd quote "AGF" or some other such crap... I do hold out hope that Hoary will provide us with at least one reasonable "Delete" vote here... Dekkappai (talk)
        • Oh yes, the website is seen only in passing, but to infer from this that it plays an insignificant role in the video clip is laughable. ¶ Certainly the video is not from Panorama. The subject is too silly to appear on Panorama, unless of course Panorama has proceeded a lot further toward idiocracy than I'd dared imagine. Nothing unusual here: huge swathes of Knowledge (XXG) are (perhaps rightly) devoted to different species of the arguably silly. ¶ WP:N does indeed require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And rightly so, as a response to grand (if not mere bullshit) claims such as that a company "is a pure-play business intelligence solution provider that has revolutionized the way organizations make decisions through business intelligence". It is, however, blazingly obvious that Knowledge (XXG) does not require it. Just hit the "random article" link and you'll find plenty. But since "other crap exists" is of course no defense, let's consider not crap articles but a good one. "Ozy and Millie" is about a web comic -- "listed in the top 200 most read webcomic on The Webcomic List" -- briefly published by the very minor Plan Nine Publishing and later from the vanity outfit Lulu.com. So far, very minor notability indeed (as "notability" is normally defined); but "In 2002, the strip won the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards for 'Best Anthropomorphic Comic'. The strip also won the 2006 and 2007 Ursa Major Awards for 'Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip'", which I'll take to be major achievements. Sourcing? The article has 27 footnotes. Most are to issues of Ozy and Millie itself; those that are not are to comic fansites and so forth. Yet this isn't merely an acceptable article, it's a "Good" one. May Dekkappai (or any other knowledgable person) source the claims in this article to big-tit fansites and similar, or is there one rule within Knowledge (XXG) for (say) "furry fandom" and another for pr0n in general or "breast fetishism" in particular? -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • No special rules are being applied to porn. Like Ozy and Millie, many porn-related articles have also survived AfD due to award wins rather than meeting GNG. However, Tokyo Topless has no reliable sourced claims of importance. Epbr123 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Ah. Ozy and Millie has won two kinds of awards. It's done particularly well at the "Ursa Major Awards", whose name intrigued me -- could there be an actual link to astronomy here? Actually no, it's instead about disneyfied furry animals, or so we learn in the WP article on it. Which is largely sourced to, um, the website of the Ursa Major Awards, though also to the "Furtean Times". ¶ Well, Dekkappai, you and your chums are just going to have to set up an award for your area of interest, and then a walled garden of articles about and related to the award; you can then present the award to any person or institution you later want to write up in WP. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
              • ...seems only sensible. With so many editors making up the rules & guidelines around here, one little guy giving out his own awards couldn't hurt anyone... Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
                • Although announcing the conspiracy beforehand probably isn't the best way to ensure its effectiveness. ¶ There is a huge amount of Japanese printed literature on pr0n. A lot of it is titillatory stuff that while purporting to examine pr0n from the outside actually more or less exemplifies its area of study (but I suppose there's nothing so exceptional here, as for example what are presented as studies of manga and commercial Japanese yoof culture often seem to be mixed up with "tributes" and the like). However, there are also sober sociological studies; I've occasionally noticed these in bookstores. I suppose you're going to have to order a few thousand yen's worth from amazon.co.jp, praying that they have indexes or are otherwise easy to use. If time permitted, I'd look in bookshops and note down titles of useful looking books -- but it won't permit. ¶ It would be very helpful if the articles in ja:WP were referenced and thus one could learn where to look things up; but in general the referencing in ja:WP is feeble or non-existent (I think because the great majority of courses at Japanese universities demand no real library research, let alone formal description thereof). -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
                  • Christ, I've shot down the "notability" of Dekkappai's Grand Prix of Pocchari Pulchritude before I even started the thing... Yes, I'm always harping about the availability of such sourcing in Japan-- both "legit" & semi-... I saw it in Japan, and a little of it used to be available in Japanese bookstores here in the US. Some crusader seems to have cleaned them up though, and I'm not devoted enough to invest in JA-Amazon... I've got just a couple good books covering the subject in English, and I milk them for sourcing, of course... If Jimbo would offer a scholarship to do the fieldwork in Tokyo, I'd apply... Until then, we'll have to learn to live without an article on Tokyo Topless, I guess... Dekkappai (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Interim comments Let's look at the nutshell of WP:WEB: Knowledge (XXG) should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. I do not think that the current article could be so interpreted. For material published on the web to have its own article in Knowledge (XXG), it should be notable and of historical significance. Notability and significance in its area have been claimed. Knowledge (XXG) articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources. Here's the problem, and I'll concede that it is not a trivial one. ¶ The general tone of WP:WEB suggests that it is a defense against (self-) promotion, and a promotional tone is lacking here. Now, even if I'm right so far (and others may well disagree), this doesn't mean that WP:WEB shouldn't apply. However, it is a guideline and I'd suggest discretion in applying it. In its current state, the article is not satisfactory, but it also seems innocuous. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Effective Public Relations---Balloonman 05:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

7 c of communication (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 essay (with email address for some reason); contested prod. Judging from the creator's edit summary as well as his/her other contributions, it appears that s/he doesn't quite understand what Knowledge (XXG) is all about. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And what's more, the only two hits in Google Books for the term give different lists of Cs, and this article is different again. Hut 8.5 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:: comment: Dear Hut 8.5 I think google books has a few more if you change the title a bit. Here are a few more: . Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
comment: moved to 7 c's of communication as this seems the more normal title. Seems quite a common list taught/mentioned in lots of business things. I can't find the originator of the list yet. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC))
  • Delete Content-wise, this article seems to be an essay. Looking for significant coverage of this in reliable sources, I was unable to find any. I did a google search of the first source listed, A Complete Course in ISC Commerce, and was unable to find anything about the "7 C's" there. The second source listed does mention them, but briefly. Fails WP:GNG. Jujutacular  02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
comment: Dear Jujutacular I think the brief mention in the first source is here: (Msrasnw (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
  • Delete as unencyclopedic content, being an essay. Whether or not the topic is notable, the article would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, which is grounds for deletion without prejudice against recreation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be just a poorly referenced original theory. See WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. If this is in fact an existing theory, then as Jujutacular notes it's not a notable one.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Must Keep: This contains an important part of our syllabus and wiki or any other side doesnot proivide this. so i would strongly recommend it should be kept. (talk)

Comment: I think this :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) might be better than the one above for finding the sources. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Keep: In my view a notable topic that has some problems with current version - that just need some work. Tagged for rescue. The earlier title did not produce as many results on the search as the current one. (adding effective to make 7 c's of effective communication seems to add more too). The orgin of this seems to be "Effective public relations: pathways to public favor" by Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center published in 1952 by Prentice-Hall. It is now in its 10th edition or so. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

AFD Tip: Familiarize yourself with WP:AADD. And next time, please don't use WP:USEFUL in your !votes. RussianReversal (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What does this refer to? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
Some References
  • Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center (1952) Effective public relations: pathways to public favor
  • Maheshwari, R. P. (1997) A Complete Course in ISC Commerce‎
  • Aggarwal, Vir Bala and V. S. Gupta (2001) Handbook of Journalism and Mass Communication
  • Murphy, H.A. et. al., (2000) “Effective Business Communication” 7th Edn, McGraw-Hill, NY (SIE)Tata McGraw-Hill, ISBN: 0070187754 EAN:9780070187757
  • Gysbers, Norman C. and Earl J. Moore (1981) Improving guidance programs, Prentice-Hall, 1981 ISBN 0134526562, 9780134526560
Mentions as topic on courses
(Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
So other authors are now referencing their 7 C's? If more than one notable source uses it, then it deserves its own article and should be kept. Dream Focus 23:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have removed the essay style comments and left it just as a referenced factual statement of Cutlip and Center's work. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

That section would merge nicely into Effective Public Relations where the points are just listed. --Stormbay (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close call, but just on the "delete" side. I note from Knowledge (XXG):NSPORT#Baseball that he clearly fails to meet 1-5; 6 would indicate that even if he was to play in the minor leagues he would not be inherently notable, and 7: "7.Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Manny Machado (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 Knowledge (XXG):NSPORT#Baseball

  • High school athlete article nominated both for WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Fails all seven criteria of Knowledge (XXG):NSPORT#Baseball. #7 specifically states, "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Knowledge (XXG) policies such as WP:BLP". --moreno oso (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG):NSPORTS#Baseball says they are notable if they meet one criterion, but it does NOT say that they are not notable if they fail to. Higher in the page (Knowledge (XXG):NSPORT#Basic_criteria) it mentions, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I believe the references to ESPN.com, Baseball America, etc. satisfy this beyond the threshold noted in criterion 7 of Knowledge (XXG):NSPORT#Baseball. Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep He will be drafted tomorrow making him notable enough for an article--Yankees10 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete He probably will be drafted, and so will 1,500 or more people. The MLB draft is large because the teams are filling the needs of their entire organization, including the farm clubs. Notability if he makes it into an MLB game. Mandsford 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes 1,500 more people will be drafted. But Machado is considered a top 5 pick and will almost certainly be drafted there, and top 5 picks are and should be notable enough for articles.--Yankees10 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He has received significant coverage as a high school player. While it's speculation to say where he will be drafted, it is verifiable that many experts have speculated that he will be drafted incredibly high. Yes it's true that about 1500 players will be drafted, but they didn't all have this type of coverage. ESPN, Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, MLB.com etc. don't all have coverage of all those 1500 players, but the handful that they deem the very best are notable. So I think he meets notability before getting drafted based upon the coverage he has received. Note that these arguments are before the draft has even occurred. If he does get drafted in the top 5 then that adds a point of notability that can no longer be overlooked.Mickeyg13 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a clear case of one editor creating an article way too soon, and another editor nominating it way too soon. Hey, where's the fire? The creator of the articles relied on this which describes Taillon and Machado as being speculated as among the first five people to be picked in the 2010 draft. Before someone hollers WP:CRYSTAL, we'll know what happened on MONDAY -- tomorrow for those of us who live in North America, already "today" for the folks out east. I'm striking the delete. Striking my delete vote; I don't intend to worry about WP:GNG until tomorrow. Mandsford 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As you pointed out, it is verifiable that they are being projected as such, and that right there is notable even if they don't actually get drafted there. Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Why is the "top 5" this magic number to make someone notable? Why not top 6, or top 10? The fact is, if this player never makes the MLB, he won't be notable. It happens all the time in the NFL. Players get articles based on "draft projections" and the articles are deleted when they've never played in a game. This player is simply not notable at this time. And if he IS drafted in the Top 5, that isn't any reason to close this AFD as "keep". — X96lee15 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not that "top 5" is magical, but more that it is very, very high. Being drafted #1 is most definitely notable, and being drafted #1500 is not per se. There's a continuum between the two; we can quibble over the exact cutoff but I would think top 10 or so would certainly meet that criteria. Even though some of these guys may never play in the Majors, I think that 20 years from now they will still be notable as high draft picks. So once they do get drafted I don't see how one would say they aren't notable. Now there likely will be players drafted in the top 10 or so that did not receive this kind of hype; for them we have to wait until they are actually drafted to create an article. But Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and Jameson Taillon (perhaps a few others) received enough coverage before the draft that they warrant inclusion regardless of where they are actually selected. Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

must Keep: this is an article i went through yesterday and this has helped me a lot as this contain's an important part of our syllabus. And i was fortunate to get it in Wiki. though it seemed to be an essay but this could really help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridibbhowmik (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) — Tridibbhowmik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment It's worth noting that being a first round draft choice is not synonymous with becoming a major league baseball. Out of the first ten players selected in the 2009 MLB draft, three-- Stephen Strasburg, Mike Leake and Drew Storen have earned themselves a spot in a future edition of The Baseball Encyclopedia, so that might need to be revisited. Although it seems that there's a project afoot to make shrines to people simply because they have been drafted, I think it's fair to say that with one exception, nobody remembers you simply for being drafted. First place is an accomplishment. Anything else is trivial. Good luck to Manny tonight. Mandsford 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete He hasn't even signed with the team yet, let alone gotten to the majors. Only one with inherent notability would've been Bryce Harper. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm with Wizard above, the #1 pick is notable (mainly because they're #1) the rest are not, they're just one of hundreds of minor league players. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Many people are acting as if someone is either the #1 pick, and thus notable, or one of the other 1499 guys who probably won't make the majors. Frankly that's an arbitrary cutoff to say that only the #1 pick is notable. It is quite notable to be say the #3 pick EVEN IF HE FAILS TO MAKE THE MAJORS. These guys receive significant media coverage from independent sources for this. They then either go on to MLB success, making them notable, or they are considered busts, making them notable for a different reason. Pick #742 needs to do something more than just get drafted to be notable, but the guys that receive significant hype before the draft (about 3 of them) and the guys that actually do get drafted high (maybe 10-20 or so; we needn't quibble over the precise cutoff) are notable even if they flop (or even because they flop in some instances). You can't just say because he's not #1 that he's not notable. Mickeyg13 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the top draft picks for the last 20 years, there are plenty of top-10 and top-3 picks that never made the big leagues. Of course there's going to be coverage of top players (the MLB draft is a big deal), but I don't think that draft-only coverage is enough to make a person notable. The #1 draftee is notable, but anything other than that isn't. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
People keep bringing up the fact that lots of top draft picks never make the Majors. This is not disputed, nor is it relevant. Manny Machado might never make it to the Majors; he might still be sufficiently notable as to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article. Please explain why the #1 draft pick is automatically notable while others aren't. We surely agree that pick #1 is notable and pick #1500 is not per se. Surely you also agree that pick #2 is more notable than pick #1500. So there is obviously some sort of continuum for notability regarding draft picks. It then seems quite strange to me that you would argue the cutoff happens to fall just between that of the #1 pick and #2 pick. That would imply there is either some huge discontinuity between their relative notabilities or that the #1 pick just barely rises above the notability threshold. Neither seems likely to me. It would seem to make more sense if this cutoff were further down the list...perhaps those outside of the top 10 or outside of the first round. You can't just automatically shut the door at #1. There are lots of reputable sources establishing the notability of these top few guys. Perhaps the article should go into more detail about this, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Nobody is trying to argue that these guys are locks for the Majors or that all 1500 drafted players deserve articles. Mickeyg13 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the #1 pick is notable, just because it's the #1 pick. I think ANY of the other 1,499 draft picks COULD be notable (for whatever reason). However, I think the coverage Machado has received is only as being a top player in the draft, not because he's unique and notable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are Manny Machados every year in the MLB draft and this one is no more notable than any of the other similar top-5 players in previous drafts. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment That would be a good compromise, as Machado's info and history would be retained, and he could be spun back out if he gets into an Orioles game. Looking at prior drafts, the crystal ball is cloudy on whether someone will be making more than WP:NEWS after draft day. As noted before, only 3 of the first ten choices in 2009 MLB draft have made the big leagues, while Dustin Ackley (#2), Donavan Tate (#3), Tony Sanchez (#4), Matt Hobgood (#5), Zachary Wheeler (#6), Mike Minor (#7), and Jacob Turner (#9) have not. In the 2008 MLB Draft, only three of ten have played in the big leagues, and the #1, #2 and #3 choices -- Tim Beckham, Pedro Alvarez and Eric Hosmer haven't (Hosmer's article got redirected to a list of K.C. Royals minor league players, while Beckham truly would be notable as the first pick overall). Kyle Shipworth (#6), Yonder Alonso (#7), Aaron Crow (#9) and Jason Castro (#10) haven't yet made it either. Bryce Harper will be remembered for being #1 in the draft this year, whether he ever plays big league ball. There's no guarantee on the others. Mandsford 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, looking at the 2008 and 2009 top draft picks is particularly irrelevant since many of them will still make the Majors but just haven't done so yet. More importantly though, nobody disputes that some of these guys will fail to make the Majors. I believe that more players than just #1 (i.e. Bryce Harper) are sufficiently notable to rise above the threshold of WP:NOT#News. Mickeyg13 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kemao Market (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. Author claims that a search using a foreign word yields results, but if that's the best evidence there is, it doesn't belong on the English Knowledge (XXG). Suggest move to another language wikipedia. -- φ OnePt618 φ 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - The fact that 2/3 of the articles in this series were independently nominated for deletion, (each within 24-hours and without notification of the author), suggests that there is a serious, systemic misconception of how English search results relate to the notability of foreign subjects. Many of the subjects most vital to an encyclopedia are foreign, yet this area is one of the most incomplete in our entire project. If our policy is not unequivocally clear that an important foreign subject with reliable foreign sources is notable, then we need to amend policy accordingly.   — C M B J   05:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing my nomination -- the author has improved the article significantly. An admin can close this discussion now.-- φ OnePt618 φ 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Circlip. Shimeru 06:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus clip (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 topic that doesn't assert notability through any reliable-sources. Wizard191 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge to a named section in circlip, preserving a redirect. Although there are a few of these aren't circlips, the vast majority are and the humorous naming isn't really enough to stand as an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ModEdit (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 is not built from reliable secondary sources; no assertion of notability. Prod was contested - no further explaination than "remove prod, notable software" - but that editor is currently blocked. Marasmusine (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MultiTracker (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 is not built from secondary sources. No indication of notability given. Prod was contested - I was hoping to inquire further, but that editor has been blocked. Marasmusine (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inclement weather in upstate NY. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Upstate New York (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)

Fixing formatting of discussion page, presumably Farine is the nominator Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying this article is a total mess would be an understatement. The article is too long and filled with POV and unsourced statements. I wouldn'tbe surprised if there was some original research involved in it as well.

For months, the tags complaining about the article's original research and POV have been there. And yet, little change has been brought in the article to correct the situation.

I say delete the article and start all over again from skratch. Farine (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Point taken. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm editing some sections further, and spinning off lists as well as sections that seem particularly controversial into separate articles. Cheers, Don Argus jr (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that Upstate New York is notable enough to deserve its own article. But the article in its current state is terrible and not reliable. I am in favor in keeping it if the article is heavily reworked. I personally don't know much about Upstate New York. But if you and other folks want to correct its flaws,I say go for it.Farine (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; we will. You'll see on the "Talk" page of the article that there is not even a consensus regarding the definition of "Upstate" New York. This generates further problems for the writing of an encyclopedia article about the place. For example: what specific areas are included when trying to cite statistics for the region? My position is that this lack of consensus, and the contentiousness with which such issues are debated, is emblematic of the issues facing the region, and is part of the character of Upstaters - and that this is a big part of what makes the region notable and worthy of a separate Knowledge (XXG) article. But as I say, this is also what makes it hard to write one. It's kind of like using cats in a scientific study. As the author Vicky Hearn points out in her book Adam's Task, scientists shy away from using cats because "cats screw up your data." But she says that this doesn't make cats unworthy of study; rather, she says, it's exactly what ought to be studied. Similarly, the debate and discussion about this article is so much more illuminating than a resolved Wiki-compliant article would be. Don Argus jr (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep nominating 'em, Farine. "AfD is not clean-up" gets repeated a lot, but it isn't policy at all, simply a personal opinion from an essay someone wrote a few years ago. It's the only way that I know of that problems with and article are brought to the attention of a larger community. More often than not, people who were not aware of the existence of a page (let alone its problems), take time to work on it, and they do so with the suggestions of others in the discussion rather than based on their own views. Improvements after such a discussion are less likely to be reverted. Sometimes, people suggest that this should be done on the article's "talk page"-- but nobody reads talk pages, even if they're aware of the article in the first place. AfD may not directly clean up an article, but it sure can alert people to something that hasn't been cleaned. Mandsford 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually the quoted pertinent statement from WP:ATD, which is policy, says: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". The phrase "AfD is not clean-up" is the essence, intent, and meaning, both literal and in spirit, of that clear policy. Saying it's just an opinion and not policy would be like saying "OR" is just an opinion and denying someone the ability to use "OR" as a deletion reason, if it's not linked to WP:NOTESSAY and doesn't quote the whole statement about original research. Every experienced editor knows what "AfD is not clean-up" and "OR" means and that they reference policy and carry the same weight. Sorry, but "AfD is not clean-up" paraphrasing is quoting policy. However, in terms of AfD and article improvement as a collateral effect: It's true that many more editors see AfD discussions due to their prominence, drop what they are doing and respond code three to rescue the article, and thus improve it. So yes, it does tend to work. But the response is disproportionate and takes away resources from other efforts to improve Knowledge (XXG). It's the moral and resource-using equivalent of calling in a police SWAT team with helicopters and heavy weapons to get someone to cut the grass on his front lawn in suburbia because it's messy (a big sin there). It also results in AfD overload, which devalues the process. — Becksguy (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The bar against original research isn't a paraphrase or an opinion at all. It's spelled out very clearly in WP:NOT. "AfD is not cleanup" is one way of interpreting WP:ATD, I suppose, but a more productive way to look at it, is that it presents the challenge to see whether there are enough people who see potential for an article to be rescued, as was the case here. When there's no sign that people want the article, good riddance to it. I'm an experienced editor, and in three years, I've watched our policies evolve rather than looking at 2007 as the status quo. I know that there are others who have been here 4, 5, even 9 years, and they are no wiser than people who've been contributing for a year. The "old-timers" tend to have a different view of Knowledge (XXG) than the ones who have come on more recently, but their opinion is not entitled to any more deference than mine. Mandsford 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, original research Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 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) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Lustre and SCADE for safety critical systems (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)

Unencyclopedic essay. Appears to be someone posting their homework, complete with first person language and wonky grammar. Declined prod & prod2. Hairhorn (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Shout-out (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)

Procedurally nominated by me as this debate was a redlink in the deletion log. Original nominator RoySmith has been asked to come and provide the rationale for deletion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what went wrong, but thanks for fixing it. In any case, this is an unreferenced neologism, and has already been trans-wikied to wiktionary. Given that the wiktionary covers the topic well, there's no need for this entry in wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Wong (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 poet appears to fail our notability standard WP:BIO, judging by the article, Google results and her CV on her website. Notability requires recognition by others, and so far the most recognition she appears to have obtained is that one of her poems was "long-listed in the UK poetry competition The Plough Prize 2008", which is not yet enough.  Sandstein  16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Maj Cameron (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 doubt this person is notable. The article appears just vanity/self-promotion, and I cannot find any reliable sources concerning him.

There are many apparent references, but I'm doubtful about them - they are vague, and I can't substantiate them. I asked User:London1212 (the creator and one of the principal editors) to be more precise about ref "The guardian May 2010" but got no response. I have Googled Maj Cameron but cannot find anything outside what are apparently his own sites. Googling on The Guardian, the Greenwich Mercury and the SLP (South London Press) brings up nothing. I can't track down what the "Greenwich Times" might be. All the vague external references were produced after other users had requested references.

I aslo note that the anon User:86.178.158.51, the other principal editor, used an edit summary "BIOGRAPHY" identical to some of User:London1212's edit summaries A bit iffy (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the article was "PROD"ed, but the PROD notice was removed three times twice.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I THINK THAT ALL REFS ARE RELIABLE AND THE PAGE SHOULD BE KEPT AND NOT DELETED - I AM THE CREATOR AND I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT RULES I AM BREAKING BY CREATING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE DO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.83.86 (talk • contribs)

You'd need to cite specific sources for the various specific assertions made. The official policy is at Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, and there is a guideline Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources for how to provide sources.
For example, the assertion that Maj Cameron is "a major mover in the 'Grime - Scene'." would need to a reference to a suitable source, but there's nothing specific in the article. You have provided things like "The guardian May 2010" but that's nowhere near specific enough - no precise date, and no indication of what it might say, so it's very difficult to verify. However, after searching the Guardian website, I have found nothing there relating to a Maj Cameron, so I actually doubt the reference is genuine.
By the way: are you Maj Cameron? I ask because, if you are, then you shouldn't be writing an article in Knowledge (XXG) about yourself (there is some rule about that somewhere, but I can't be bothered to look it up).
--A bit iffy (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I AM NOT MAJ CAMERON - THE SOURCES, I'LL GET THEM AND PUT THEM ON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.83.86 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only specific, identifiable references (Myspace and a personal web site) are non-reliable and do not support notability. Prod BLP notices have been removed at least twice. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter J. Burien Jr. (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)

Political activist who misuses his Knowledge (XXG) article as a soapbox. Fails WP:BIO, as far as I can tell; Google News finds only a few mentions in blogs and other apparent advocacy websites.  Sandstein  15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A "few mentions" you say above:

Try a Google search for Walter Burien and you will get over 400,000 hits.

Try a Google for Government Wealth and you will get over 50,000,000 hits with CARF1.com being the first hit and the documentary done by Walter Burien being the number 1 video hit.

Try a Google for Government Investments and you will get over 50,000,000 hits with a CAFR1.com article being the second hit.

Try a Google for CAFR and the CAFR1 site is #1.

NFA Stands for National Futures Association. The "only" registration arm for the Federal agency CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) that NFA licenses all brokers / operatives in the Commodity Futures Industry for the CFTC.

Signed, Walter J. Burien, Jr, AKA Bubien - Tel (928) 445-3532 - P. O. Box 2112 - Saint Johns, AZ 85936

PS: Try the US Patent links if you want to view some very interesting technology I invented in the telecommunications field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.7.116 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

gsearch for string "walter burien" gets 67k hits. exaggerating, or doing a search for the 2 names for wherever they appear, is misleading and/or uneducated. I was looking for non-blog, non-email, mentions. show 2 or 3 mentions at notable alternative politics websites: huffington post, daily kos, left, right, libertarian, whatever. Mr Burien, WP is not a free webhosting service. We are all absolutely happy with your article being here if we can find reliable sources to support it. just provide them. so far, we dont have any.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Subject has never held office, fails WP:POLITICIAN. He has never written a book, fails WP:AUTHOR. He has a couple of patents, but that does not confer notability. He has occasionally been interviewed on the radio . Other than that I could not find any significant or reliable coverage about him. Lots of stuff on blogs and such, but nothing from mainstream sources. Google News provides nothing at all for "Walter R. Burien Jr." and only five hits for "Walter Burien" - none of them from reliable or notable sources.. Mr. Burien claims that Google gives 400,000 hits for Walter Burien, but that undoubtedly includes sites with just "Walter" or just "Burien". A search for "Walter Burien" with the quotation marks actually provides 70,000 hits - many of them things like an e-mail he wrote to somebody. "Walter Bubien" does no better. (He claims he changed his name out of fear of reprisal - reprisal for exactly what is not clear; he claims that he and his friends and the station he appeared on "came under attack," but no trace of that attack can be found on Google.) The article itself is a mess, a cross between resumé and narrative essay, but it could be rewritten if the subject himself was notable per Knowledge (XXG)'s standards WP:N - which in my opinion he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know that any of these are him, but here are some possible references. The article is a mess, and will require extensive cleanup stripping COI if it remains. Also, all unsourced material should be stripped, and that will reduce the article by a large amount. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that interesting collection. The only article that is clearly about him is the guy at allafrica.com, showing his video at a conference in Africa. The articles from the Daily Courier refer to someone running for local office in Prescott, Arizona. Several of the articles, from major sources like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Washington Times, refer to a recruiter and spokesman for a local militia, also in Arizona. No evidence as to whether this is or isn't the same guy, but it could be; our Walter J. Burien Jr. reportedly lives in Arizona. This guy could turn out to be more interesting than his self-promotional article lets on. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless some reliable sources can be found. I've started some minor cleanup, but there is basically no sourced material in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DTAFM (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 page is definitely violating the first of the five founding principle of Knowledge (XXG) for the following reasons :

  • The page is a marketing self promoting article written by the ATDMF company itself (namely Philippe Cahen), as confirmed by several phrases written in first person : "...on our specific tools" ; "With our 7 and 23 periods moving averages..."; "In our approach, volatility is measured by..."
  • Philippe Cahen’s "ATDMF" company (registered under n° B 519 926 737 - RCS Paris) does not meet any of the three notoriety criteria requested to qualify (It is a sole proprietor small business, not public, absent from any company ranking list, not subject to any independant research or publication)
  • Similarly, the education service marketed by Philippe Cahen under the name of "ATDMF" does not meet any of the two criteria requested by our charter : its name did not become a generic name, and it has never been subject to any independent research or publication.
The only publications found were books authored by Mr. Cahen himself and a few self promoting press releases.

We are facing here a hidden commercial advertising action, thus violating our rules.

This explains why sources or references have been missing for so long : there are none.

For the here above reasons, the page DTAFM is proposed for deletion, as already done as far as its French version. Deborah Abington (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. Deletion discussion on fr.wikipedia is here for anyone who wants to see it. It's likely, I think, that our article is a translation of the French one. Deor (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
...and its result was delete: very weak notability, no secondary sources, has an advertising goal, and original research. (Notoriété très faible, pas de sources secondaires, article à but promotionnel et travail inédit) Comte0 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gary Bills (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 poet. Joe Chill (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.23.6 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster (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 a minor event and is not likely to have any long term notability. It fails to meet the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Timothy_Hutton#Personal_life. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable by herself, no references. More importantly, the corresponding article on the French wikipedia is fr:Famille Giscard d'Estaing: it should either be moved to Giscard d'Estaing family or deleted Comte0 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: WP:FRANCE has been notified.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete. Prod removed, but the concern: "Notability - no independent references" is still a problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia – United Arab Emirates relations (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 current article is mainly based on one source. the only real coverage I found in gnews was that the 2 countries foreign ministers met last year. that in itself is not enough to make an article. yes UAE recognises Macedonia but so do many countries. and those wanting to barrel scarpe for bilateral relations Macedonians working for a UAE firm were taken hostage in Iraq. Please note that bilateral relations are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion seems headed towards deletion, I hope we will at least merge the content in this article elsewhere so as not to lose it.--TM 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonably well sourced. Due to the growing importance of bilateral relations in our increasingly multi-polar world its probably worthwhile to relax the GNG slightly in favour of useful articles such as this one. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
we don't relax criteria to suit your own personal preferences. next thing you want would be relax WP:BIO, , WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- I agree with arskwad and TreasuryTag. This article is a violation of WP:SYNTH, concocted upon some vague expressions of agreeableness between the two nations, and reported in non-secondary sources. Reyk YO! 06:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The headline to one of the news links in the article is "UAE Ministry of Economy meets Macedonian Minister of Foreign Investment to discuss stronger bilateral trade". Sounds like a bilateral relationship between the countries. Newspapers in both countries surely cover these meetings. Dream Focus 05:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. The article has already been speedy deleted per CSD G11. (Non-admin closure.) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

MFIC (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)

Nothing but advertisement. Plantron (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:WEB. No reliable third party coverage whatsoever. Hank is the main character of the Madness Combat series according to the article. The article on Madness Combat was itself deleted for lack of notability: Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Madness_Combat Frankly, almost meets CSD:A7 but a prod was contested so I am going via AfD. Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak delete If this had had correct citations and the Madness Combat article hadn't been deleted, I would probably let it stay, but I can find no reliable third party coverage of this, and it's a bit pointless having an article about a main charecter in a series without an article about the series. I'm no comic expert, but if someone can prove that this is notable in the comic circles and provide references, I might change my mind. WackyWace 14:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: A non-notable character of a non-notable series. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: --Daveblack (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Miss Hannah Minx (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)

Rather non-notable Internet celebrity. A 100,000 subscribers is not even close to numbers of most popular YouTube vloggers worldwide. Despite her minor attention in Japan, there are about two or three reliable sources covering this person outside of YouTube. Karppinen (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Essex bus route 541 (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 bus route. No evidence the route has ever received significant, independent coverage so fails WP:GNG.No references provided Nuttah (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus that it is not notable JForget 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Essex bus route 59 (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 bus route. No evidence the route has ever received significant, independent coverage so fails WP:GNG. Sole provided reference makes no mention of the route. Nuttah (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - This route is a very significant link, and should be kept. More sources are needed though. Alex12341000 17:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus to keep JForget 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

List of film directors by name (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 fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is a list of film director names and nothing more that could be easily replaced by a sub-category of Category:Film directors. There is no encyclopaedic treatment of the names in this list, apparently by consensus according to to the talk page. AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no no timelimit or no deadline. Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No, there isn't but, as it stands right now, the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why it's been nominated. If you can turn it into a decent list article in 7 days, please do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Or you can fix it instead of attacking every perfectly rationale arguement you happen to disagree with. Lugnuts (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why should I fix it? I think it should be deleted and there is a clear policy explaining why it should be. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Which of the seven categories in WP:NOTDIR does this List violate? -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
How about #1 "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons".--AussieLegend (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
They're not loosely-related, they're strongly-related, all being directors -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The only link is that they are director, which is only a loose connection. A list of female film directors from America is an example of a strong connection. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — It serves a valid purpose, in that it provides an easily accessible list for this purpose. Lists of Films, of writers, of books, would - and probably are - here, and are of the same characters as this. People generally would expect to locate information of that type here. I believe it is valid content for Knowledge (XXG) and should be kept. If it's recommended to change the name to 'List of film directors' or 'list of film and video directors' or something like that. I have no problem and is probably not a bad idea. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And do you plan to go through several hundred, or several thousand entries, and insert the category links in all of them? Besides that, what is the difference between having a direct accessible page for this information and a harder to reach category presuming people even know about it, except that for a normal person they can type this in as opposed to having to find a category, presuming they even know about categories? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If there is need, somebody will create a category. Whether or not I'm willing to do it is not a question for this discussion. The question before us is, should this article, that breaches policy, be deleted. The difference between having an article, which is no easier to get to than the category, and a category is that one breaches policy while the other does not. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So your answer is to delete something useful and usable in favor if something that does not even exist and that you have no interest in creating? My, doesn't that make a lot of sense! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish to point out that your belief that the page shouldn't exist conflicts with WP:CLN, which reads
“ ” Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask this another way, is the list of films valid here or should it simply be only a category? I think people would say it's valid as an entry, and I don't see the rationale for denying this as a valid 'real' entry as opposed to downgrading it to a mere category. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Lists of films could not be replaced by a single category, List of film directors by name could. There's a big difference there. Lists of films is a consolidated list using different sort criteria while List of film directors by name is a single list using a single criteria, which is easily and more appropriately replaceable with a single category, if there is a need to do so. Why would you even bother to use List of film directors by name? Why not just type the directors name into the search field? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think a better example is List of films: A, as it performs the exact same function as the list we are discussing. i see no reason to delete this list, either. by the way, WP:not directory doesnt apply, if you read it. the lists to be avoided dont include already notable subjects organized by a single, clear principle. if this included articles on writers as well, that would make it a directory of "content creators" and would probably fail afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
To answer "Why not just type the directors name into the search field?" - because you might not always remember the person's full name (eg "What's the guy beginning with Z?") -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very useful list of notable film directors - and a category is not the same as a list, which works very differently in terms of searching (A category would inevitably evolve into many sub-categories, which would be much harder to search) -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, for one thing, a list that exists is a lot more useful than a category that doesn't - if we think there's a better way to do something, we don't delete the old way before implementing the new way. And as Mercurywoodrose says below, a simple alphabetical list can often be a lot quicker to seargh ("Hmm, what's that guy beginning with Z?") than a tree of sub-categories -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A category can always be created so that reason doesn't explain why the artiicle is useful. "Hmm, what's that guy beginning with Z?" - You're talking about a directory, which Knowledge (XXG) is not. Why doesn't anybody get that? What the hell, let's all ignore the policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I think you're misunderstanding the policy - the "Not a directory" policy does not mean that all lists are banned. Just have a look around at all the "List of..." articles, and it should be pretty obvious that WP:NOTDIR does not mean what you think. Anyway, I don't think there's anything more I can add that's constructive, and this is supposed to be a discussion not an argument - so I'll leave it now and the closing admin can weigh all the contributions and decide. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep while it would be helpful to have a category doing the same thing, this shows the advantage of lists over cats at times: cats are usually broken down into smaller cats, such as by country in this case. for someone who cant recall a directors nationality, or wants to browse the entire list, this works. Im really surprised the name hasnt been changed in 6 years to List of film and television directors, but thats the only problem i see. all other problems would relate to maintenance, making it more informative, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per WP:CLN. -- φ OnePt618 φ 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to throw in a futile delete !vote, in that a list that is no better than a category is a wasted opportunity, and a notable topics deserve something better than a list of blue links. However, I do see merit to Mercurywoodrose's point that it's all on one page, whereas in a category, you have to do go 200 names at a time. I think that in 2003, the article's creator envisioned that this would be split into smaller lists once it got to be too big, and if it's a choice between this page of blue, or 26 smaller pages called "List of film directors whose name begins with __", then this is the lesser of two evils. We have higher standards now than we did in '03, so if it ever does get split, let's hope that it's upgraded. Mandsford 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of convenience, the present article breaches specific policy, so convenience isn't a valid argument. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with you there, Aussie, but the only surprise on this one is that it hasn't been closed as a snow keep already. Mandsford 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Farley's Yard Trust (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)

Orphaned article (since August 2006) about a non-notable organization. The article (as well as Ghits) mention the name of the organization but never really goes into detail what the organization does. In addition, the creator made the article in December 2005 and hasn't been on Knowledge (XXG) since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rhys Baggridge (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)

Is contracted to a professional club but has never played a match for them. Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Clowes (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)

Contracted to a fully professional club (Yeovil Town) but has never played a match. Sherborne Town - for whom he has played - is obviously not fully professional. Mkativerata (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (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:CRYSTAL by stating definitively that the telescope will be built (and doesn't give a date). I recommend this article be deleted for now, and re-created after the telescope is actually built. -- φ OnePt618 φ 05:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable, unsourced. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 05:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Brackenridge Field Laboratory (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)

Too short\not notable. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 05:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Claims notability but no gnews hits. Ghits appear to be mainly social networking sites. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahn, Texas Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Site subject clearly not notable - It's a local PR firm, no doubt a good one, but not notable for Knowledge (XXG) under any definition. Local only. Has only one link to the site from elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG) (see below) and that is from an employee who created the site - a Conflict of Interest (seeCOI) violation. Minimal sourcing. I see nothing to recommend against speedy deletion.
  • Advertisement - Site was entirely designed by an employee of the firm Russ Rhea for purposes of advertising the firm. The only link to the site is from Russ Rhea's own also not-notable article -- a five or six line bio basically saying he's an employee of Hahn Texas. A nice effort but violates Conflict of Interest COI standards.


Recommend for Speedy Deletion

Add coments and recommendations below but within this section, please

  • Keep. The language is neutral, and significance is asserted, so I don't see this as a candidate for speedy deletion. While I'm not sure the depth of the coverage, there is coverage in newspapers. I don't see any problems that are insurmountable through editing by neutral parties. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Incorrect and few references, external Links, and categories. References are few and all are improperly written. First reference does not even link to an article. Another is simply a ref to the company website. Please read the Knowledge (XXG) section on how to create proper references. External links, too, are improperly done. This section should contain no articles (only the external website to Hahn Texas belongs here, but the articles belong in the reference citations). And only one category is not enough. These three sections, while well intentioned, are a mess. 4804BT (talk)
  • Delete per nomination. Article is about a local public relations firm. No evidence of notability outside of its corner of Texas. Strongly promotional tone. (For more than 35 years, the company has partnered with many organizations and businesses in Texas engaged in real estate, energy, education, lifestyle, health care, local and state government, the nonprofit sector and transportation. Hahn,Texas is also involved in numerous community activities throughout the state....) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisements masquerading as articles

  • Recommended for Speedy Deletion under DB-INC.
  • See "Advertisements masquerading as articles" section. Your comments about fixes doesn't change the fact that this is an advertisement, written about a non-notable local company, written by it's own employee(s). It is the very definition of an advertisement. So far there has been no evidence of editing by ANY neutral parties. See Knowledge (XXG):Spam Advertisements masquerading as articles, section: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." A neutral tone has been attempted but not achived in this self-serving advertisement for the company. No offense intended. 4804BT (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Note, too, the use of the company logo in the Infobox. If that's not advertising, I don't know what is. I am not recommending deletion for the COI issues -- while disturbing -- but related to this being a simple advertisement for a local, non-notable company. 4804BT (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Meanwhile C.Fred has recommended not to pursue Speedy Deletion (SD). That's fine, but then someone needs to start working on the site to validate notability and eliminate advertising issues. And it should not be anyone with a COI relationship. 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4804BT (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I note that all the 'keep's are from accounts which have only edited this AfD and the article. While this in itself does not exclude their comments, it is telling that no established editors have recommended keeping the article. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence of this movement's notability. A merge with Jediism would appear to be an incorrect call, as the two are apparently very different. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jedi realist (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 declined speedy deletion, as the article isn't nonsense and doesn't meet any other criterion for speedy deletion. The article was redirected to Jediism by Ironholds (talk · contribs), but the author reverted it. decltype (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Jediism.-- φ OnePt618 φ 04:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to show that this is a notable movement, and based on the article text, it's not used interchangably with Jediism. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete & Redirect to Jediism. Not notable in its own right, and not enough information available on the internet for it to not be more appropriate to be a subsection of Jediism. SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jedi Realism is as much a notable movement as Jediism, they are not the same as Jediism is a religion, based off of the Philosophy of the Jedi realist. These are not interchangeable, if anything Jediism is a subsection of Jedi Realism. A simple google search for Jedi Realist brings up 440,000 results, to include the IJRS,Jedi realist academy, jedi realist training at 43things.com, jedisanctuary.com, jedi realism at beliefnet.com, and more, I don't understand the comment about not enough information on it available on the internet unless smokingnewton just didn't bother to even look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.110.233 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge into Jediism, then delete. As it has been claimed to be different, a section of Jediism can be about Jedi realism, should enough reliable sources be present. Brambleclawx 03:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The majority of those who emulate the 'way of the Jedi' are NOT those who follow the religious dictates under Jediism. Historically, Jedi 'followers' and Jedi Realists came a decade and more before the first 'churches of Jediism' came along... so why do so many here want to push all things Jedi under the Jediism umbrella? Because Jediism has more press online (due to the census pranks and idiots sueing claiming their hoodie is official Jedi wear? User:Kol Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.83.174 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as article fails WP:GNG: no third party reliable sources. Armbrust Contribs 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP as you pointed out Armbrust, below is what you pointed to, how many Books do you need about the subject to consider it notable? Currently a search of Amazon brings up several books on the subject as listed in the article itself. Heck one of them is even listed in the link you yourself posted.

Notability requires verifiable evidence The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.User:Memnoich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.159.10 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Memnoich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep and redirect article should fall under the PRIMARY source which is JEDI and not Jediism. If one studies the history of groups 'following the Jedi path', Jediism is a late comer compared to the Realists who have had BBSs and online 'schools' since the late 80s and early 90s. That stated, perhaps Jediism should be redirected to JEDI as a footnote rather then making it the PRIMARY reference. User:Kol Drake

I find myself in agreement with Kol Drake's suggestion. JEDI should be the primary reference, with an appropriate disambiguation page to differentiate between the Jedi Order in fiction, Role-playing groups, and those who we consider the 'real-world Jedi.' Jediism is one branch under that. Jedi Realisism is another. Jedi Mysticism is yet another. There are quite a few segments of Jedi in the world, after 30+ years of inspiration and hard work. For the most part, Jedi Realists are defined by their lack of a religious overtone. Jediism, as a term, is less consistent, as non-religious groups have used that term, but typically is referring to groups who have put a religious slant on their philosophy. Knowledge (XXG) could, thus, serve to help edcuate the masses, rather than confuse them further, on the various branches of real-life Jedi that have formed over the years, and what their distinctions really are. There are several active online communities of Jedi Realists that we can cite as significant coverage and recognition that Jedi Realisism is somethign very much different from Jediism. It is improper, and a gross disservice to wikipedia users, to attempt to subcategorize Jedi Realism under Jediism when the two have diverged into very seperate and distinct philosophies. Kol Drake's suggestion, I think, would minimize future challenges to any entries relating to the 'real-world Jedi' and the movement at large. We wouldn't want to subcategorize Mormonism under Judaism, even though there is some lineage there. This particular debate strikes me as being very similar to that scenario. --Stryse (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Stryse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep if you look at the history for the Jediism page they, user:Ren, even recommend a Separate page for Jedi Realism as they themselves see it as being different Memnoich (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect This is an essay not an article. It also incorporates some semi-philosophical 'how-to' which is distinctly non-encyclopaedic. I've just flicked through the first 10 pages of ghits for "Jedi Realist", and all bar one seem to be blogs, forums or involved sites. (The one looks like a directory of sorts.) Peridon (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, invited sites, unless you are meaning sites that ask you to join, I think you're looking at them wrong. With all the spammers out there, does it really surprise you that most sites are asking for a membership. As for forums and Blogs being the top ones, well what do you think gets the most action, if you you actually go to the Home page of those sites you'd see that.Memnoich (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo for 'involved', sorry. Sites connected to the subject. As to blogs and forums - they just simply are no use for establishing notability, for the same reason that Knowledge (XXG) itself can't be used as a prime reference. Editable. Peridon (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Books found on Google Books Jedi Realist, Google Books Jedi Realism, Google BooksMemnoich (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Three independent books in the first Google search just above, with one going on to discuss the difference between Jedi realism and Jediism that was brought up earlier in this discussion. Additionally, while the page maybe doesn't meet style and content guidelines yet, it's more encyclopedic than it was when this discussion began. No reason this page shouldn't be given an opportunity to mature. There are plenty of pages that fail WP:GNG far worse than this one does, and this one at least has the potential to become something. -- Atticus Rex 05:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:ESSAY, and seems-to-be-attracting-mostly-obvious-socks-arguing-keep. --EEMIV (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There are several books listed that come from established, reliable Publishers that speak about Jedi Realism. So I guess the question is, how many reliable source's do you feel are needed before it conforms to the Notability requirements?Memnoich (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Way to WP:AGF, and have you read WP:ESSAY? -- Atticus Rex 14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Merseia (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)

Is a location in a non-notable book. If the book(s) isn't notable, how can its location be? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 03:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BOY (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 band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Week Keep : Keep with the name change to Boy (Canadian band) and BOY a redirect to Boy (disambiguation) Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Since the article now has a reasonable chance of survival, I have done the Move to Boy (Canadian band) as suggested, and made the necessary adjustment at Boy (disambiguation). Not sure if further disambiguation for the capitalized word "BOY" is necessary but disambig's are not my area of expertise. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

010 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)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Question Dream Focus, are you basing this on having read the article in it's entirety? The preview in front of the paywall at highbeam looks like a press release to me, and in trying to track down the publication itself, I keep landing in market oriented pages. I work in IT and I've never heard of GUI Program News.... --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • delete proving existence does not prove notability... need some sources that actually explain what the heck this is and verify it... Arskwad (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- There's lots of software in the world and most of it can be verified to exist. But most software in the world is not notable, and this isn't. Reyk YO! 06:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. well, this isn;t going anywhere fast, so I hereby withdraw it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Poorly sourced BLP- primary source, local news report and IMDb respectively, no notability outside of some spelling competition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The national spelling bee isn't just "some spelling competition". A national champion who happens to be a national reporter as well is notable enough for me. Why does this require a second AfD discussion?-- φ OnePt618 φ 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it's a poorly sourced BLP on an individual who is, at best, marginally notable. It would be a better use of your time to actually improve the article than to make arguments like 'clearly notable' in the AfD, which is actually listed as an argument to avoid. Just take a look at it- it's full of {{fact}} tags and sourced to IMDb, whose reliability for WP purposes is questionable at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: One book references devotes four entire pages to her and states that she was part of team from the Rocky Mountain News that was a Pulitzer Prize finalist: . Location (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anamika Veeramani (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 on a young girl who is not notable. Article is composed mostly of trivia- hobbies, ambitions etc- but there's little to no verifiable biographical information. Finally, though AfD is not for cleanup, the article reads more like a press release than an encyclopaedia entry. She's a good speller, but I don't think that makes her notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Several independent articles exist on prior spelling bee winners Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, Jacques Bailly, Jody-Anne Maxwell and this is the oldest and the largest event of its kind in the world.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Then you are welcome to nominate them if you feel they do not meet the notability criteria. However, simply because other stuff exists does not make another similar article appropriate. Grsz 02:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I nominated Katie Kerwin McCrimmon because that article is in an appalling state for a BLP. The rest are at least sourced, so I won't nominate them for now because I don't want to look like I'm trying to prove a point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Catarrhal Noise. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Gio (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)

{{db-person}} Walkabout86 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am only deleting the nominated article - if you want the other 2 deleted, I would suggest AfDing those separately. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Haq (al Qaida leader) (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:N IQinn (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IQuinn - I am seeking clarification of this person from User:Geo Swan. I have brought this up on his talkpage concerning other names similar to "Abdul Haq" which are as follows:

Please be advised that I am still waiting for a response from User:Geo Swan if two or maybe all threee are the same person. If they are the same person or a second person, there could be at least one less wikipedia page. Adamdaley (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all. If we can't even determine if they are the same person, I would say that's definitive proof that the coverage cited in the articles does not meet the significant coverage requirements of WP:GNG.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    Comment. There are no authoritative sources that state that King Scorpion and Narmer are different persons, and we can't even determine if they are the same person. Is that definitive proof neither is adequately covered so that both articles should be deleted? (This is a rhetorical question. Don't quote WP:OTHERSTUFF now – I'm just using this as an example to show that the argument as presented does not hold water.)  --Lambiam 21:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    Very well, show me the reliable sources that have studied these various Abdul Haq's and the debate raging over whether they are the same person. The reason those sources don't exist is because there is not significant coverage of any of these individuals.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie humanitarian work (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)

Although this may have the potential be a spin-off of the Angelina Jolie article it is entirely redundant at present. Oore (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be just copied and pasted. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main bio isn't so long or short that this material would be excessive or disproportionate. It is not notable on its own, though individual foundations or campaigns may be.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • redirect. per comments above. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • At the time that I spun off the article there was a request to shorten the article through a spin off because the main one was too long. That is what I did choosing to do one of the humanitarian work because she is primarily an actress. RichardBond (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete Again, and Salt Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Killer Startups is indiscriminate ("We review 15 startups per working day"). American Chronicle review was written by Sexton, a Shvoong writer. Other 2 external links are of dubious reliability/depth. See also the previous AfD. Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

regarding the American Chronicle reference: Shvoong is a UGC website. it can be expected that someone writing ABOUT shvoong, may also be writing ON shvoong. That does not mean that the writer's opinion is irrelevant or biased. Godivaqueen (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Vergara (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 television reporter. Works as a small market affiliate in Virginia. Fails WP:N and WP:V. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Promotional -- article creator has been spamming links here to various musical notation program articles. He just tried to hide it by wrapping it inside Musical Notation Internet Publishing, which I've also nominated for deletion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp) (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:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not quite enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Fand training camp (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:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Background -- As those who follow thse topics know several teams of scholars have published multiple analyses of the memos used to justify the continued detention of the Guantanamo captives. Scholars at the Combatting Terrorism Center at the USAMA at West Point, lead by Colonel Joseph Felter, wrote:
    • that they found that 181 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified by the allegation that they were associated with independent training camps in Afghanistan, or Pakistan's tribal areas.
    • that there had been on the order of 100 independent training camps in the region.
    • they published a bar chart of the eleven most attended camps. They also listed 27 other camps.
    • the 9-11 Commission's report singled out several camps that trained the 9-11 hijackers.
I started most of the articles on the training camps we know about from the allegations against Guantanamo captives. Lots of other references have emerged for some of the camps. For others I haven't seen other references.
I don't own these articles. I do think that piecemeal nominations for deletion of individual articles is a bad approach. I suspect practically everyone would agree that camps the 9-11 commissions report described as the camps that trained the 9-11 hijackers merit separate articles. I suspect practically everyone would agree that the camps where Iraqi WMD trainers were alleged to have trained al Qaeda recruits how to use chemical and biological weapons merit separate articles. I suspect most people would agree that the eleven camps in the West Point chart merit separate articles. Which of the other 27 camps listed by Felter merit separate articles?
I don't own these articles. And I won't pretend to know what the community would conclude, if all these articles were the subject of a central discussion. I have got to say I have been extremely frustrated, puzzled and disappointed by the flat refusals of User:Iqinn, our nominator, to engage in any central discussions of common issues on the articles we are both editing.
The contributor who nominated this article for deletion has taken the position that the memos that contain the allegations against the Guantanamo captives are "primary sources". I strongly disagree. In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ordered the executive branch to institute a review process, where the captives could (1) learn; (2) have a chance to try to refute; the allegations that were being relied upon to keep them in detention. In response, the DoD created a brand new agency, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants. The officials in this new agency who authored these memos called upon (sometimes conflicting) reports from half a dozen other agencies. They had the responsibility to understand and interpret the reports written by other agencies. They had the responsibility to collate the information from the reports from these other agencies, evaluate their credibility, and cast out non-credible or superceded allegations. They had the responsibility to determine which allegations were duplicates and cast them out. They had the responsibility to reconcile allegatins from the other agencies that conflicted with one another. The authors of these memos had to do all these things in the course of preparing these memos. These are the canonical distinguishing characteristics of a secondary source. And I continue to believe these memos are solidly secondary sources. `Geo Swan (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rock the Park (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 fails to demonstrate why the subject of the article is notable according to our policies and appears to be promotional in nature. This appears to be a non-notable (although worthy) local charitable event sponsored by three local radio stations. Deconstructhis (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it demonstrates notability reasonably well: it's an annual, well-attended event in one of Ontario's largest cities that's raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can find a few more sources to add in. -- Scorpion 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru 06:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyert and March (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 really appears to be a content fork. Although Richard Cyert and James G. March did work together, I can find no sources indicating that they worked together collectively under this name. All the information here is pretty much already covered in their respective articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If reliable sources can be found for this film, then it can be recreated -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment A big problem with this stub is its very common name and false positives. However, using its title and director in Japanese ("家族写真","金貞鎰") does give results that will need transalation. Trying its English name/version plus its various lead actors give some mixed results as well. Schmidt, 02:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I extracted the page from the dab as there were a couple of red links to it. I don't particularly care if it hangs around or not. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
IMBD is notoriously incomplete for films made in Asia. Schmidt, 04:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if was clearly notable, it would likely appear there? Could someone check to see if it is covered at the Japanese Knowledge (XXG)? That might be a reasonable notability check. I created the page when straightening out a dab page in the hopes someone would beef it up. Hasn't happened. Its not a very useful page as it stands. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Family_Portrait_.28film.29_up_for_deletion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A_Change_of_Seasons#Track_listing. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for songs. Neelix (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gordon 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 company chairman or on the board of AMCHAM is not of itself sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Searching Google News reveals no matches for '"Gordon Stewart" American Chamber of Commerce'. The references included confirm job roles with nothing to demonstrate significant impact. A speedy has been removed, so I am raising for further discussion. Fæ (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rushabh Eye Hospital and Laser Center-Mumbai India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced promotional article. Previously speedied under this title and under Rushabh Eye Hospital and Laser Center. Spam links to the website have been recently added from various IPs to eye surgery-related articles. Please salt after deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete - non notable hospital--Sodabottle (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Zinneke Parade (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 indication of notability. PROD was declined because the article exists on several other language wikis. Sorry, but other wikis do not qualify as reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lost in the Game (soundtrack) (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 a soundtrack of an unknown independent film. Its only claim of notability is that it was made by MC Ren. Non-notable album, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I placed links to Projekt30, Tampa Bay Business Guild and the Dirty Show. The diry show alone, by their estimates, receive 6-10k entries per year and for him to be selected among the 2k artists to exhibit is quite a feat. Those sites are not owned by the artist. The artist is well known in the leather and fetish community in Tampa and Chicago, but not mainstream. I don't think he would care if the article was deleted, I only did it because as a member of that community in Tampa, I would like to see him get more exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.121.238 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the projekt30 site and found no reference to this individual. References are supposed to be independent articles or announcements, such as a newspaper article or other legitimate online reference that directly focus on the subject of the article. Not a casual mention in some other capacity, such as "he showed his work at a show" and the promoter published an ad that is being used as a ref. I suspect the other two are similar in that he was involved somehow, but is there something tantamount to a published article solely about him that can be referenced? If not, this subject will not make the cut as Knowledge (XXG) has distinct guidelines about exactly what will satisfy the notability requirement. Additionally, Knowledge (XXG) requires at least two published, legitimate references and often the editors around here will not allow that few. This article will need serious attention, esp. regarding the references to avoid being deleted. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru 07:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ZipcodeZoo (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 website. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. One of the news hits said that the website crashed shortly after opening. Seems notable.-- φ OnePt618 φ 04:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to amend my erroneous statement above -- the news article was actually referring to another site. I still feel this is notable enough to keep around.-- φ OnePt618 φ 04:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any guideline based reason for this keep? Joe Chill (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moon In Capricorn (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 is about an unreleased album—a prior unreleased album, not a future/speculative one—that cites no sources to verify the information in the article. Not only does that render the article unverifiable, but it also means it fails the general notability guideline. Further, there is no provision in WP:NALBUMS for such historical unreleased albums, so it also fails the notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. The issue of merging can be addressed with a standard "mergeto" request. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Loni maratha Kunabi (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 Indian "community" - fails WP:N - there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. There's just enough non-Knowledge (XXG) references to them on the internet to confirm that they exist, but nothing which demonstrates any sort of notability. Most of the content seems to be original research, and thus in breach of WP:OR. Claritas § 13:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 07:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Adventure Kid (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 search for reliable sources only comes up with a single review by Mania.com (formerly AnimeOnDVD) for the anime adaptation. One review is not enough to establish significant coverage. Article has been tagged for notability since October 2008 and retagged in December 2009 after an IP removed it without explanation. Article has been without a source since its creation. Neither the manga nor the anime adaptation pass the notability guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 13:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Manga: The Complete Guide" by Jason Thompson (2007) ISBN 0345485904
"The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" by Jonathan Clements & Helen McCarthy (2006) ISBN 1933330104
"Eros in Hell: Sex, Blood and Madness in Japanese Cinema" by Jack Hunter (1998) ISBN 1871592933
76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment if deleted, it should redirect to the comic book author, as a valuable search term. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Can notable books be cited as references then? I see that this is an old series, so reviews might be hard to come by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Between Mania.com, The Anime Encyclopedia, and Eros in Hell, we've got three reliable source references/reviews with which to demonstrate notability. (Manga: The Complete Guide is also reliable, but cannot be used to assert notablity because it is not descriminative, as it attempted to cover all manga licensed in English as of publication; its summary is fair game for the reception section, though.) As such, either by way of the OVA adaptation or original manga we've got enough to pass WP:BK, and as such is a keeper. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The description in the article (including the reviews) imply that TAE is not comprehensive -- covering "most of the famous anime" suggests there's editorial selectivity involved. I could be wrong about this, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, the delete arguement is that no third party references were found and there was only one review, so therefore it is non-notable. References have since as it appears to have been found, adding them in is another matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I think Malkinann makes a very valid point. The Anime Encyclopedia does aim for comprehensiveness, with over 3,000 entries that "run the gamat from little-known gems to legendary classics". Its backmatter quotes multiple reviews noting how comprehensive it is. The same with Manga: The Complete Guide. While both are clearly reliable sources and useful for filling in an article, without other significant coverage, I think entries in these are no different from any other comprehensive directory and cannot, alone, establish notability. Nor can a single AoD review. In reading the Anime Encyclopedia entry for it, it does not give any indication of anything that would have made it particularly notable. It does note that it was heavily cut and released in the UK as Adventure Duo, however in searching for sources on that title, I could not find anything beyond the same AE entry. Also could not confirm it has any coverage in Eros in Hell, though Google Books has no preview pages (search on both titles came back no results, however). As such, this appears to fail WP:NF and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - The FUTON bias seems to be in operation here, as this is a slightly older title. Wondering if nominator's WP:BEFORE extended to their copies of Newtype USA? Without being able to assess the coverage of Adventure Kid in Eros in Hell or other offline sources, it's unlikely to show notability. --Malkinann (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG's well-argued point not withstanding, the consensus here is to delete (although it is noted that several were 'weak delete's) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Mohammad Reza Marvi Mohajer (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 professor. No indications that this person's work has made a significant impact in his field. No indications of any special notice from his academic community, such as awards or indendent coverage. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to post one's resume. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. However, the previous bundled AFD was closed as "keep" for the whole shebang on 22 April 2010. Therefore IMHO, this close should stick for a while. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio Disney Holiday Jams 2 (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)

nominated previously as a bundle that resulting in a KEEP. As this album has no significant coverage and has neither charted nor any reviews, this one specifically can probably be deleted. Earlier nom is at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Radio Disney's Pop Dreamers (album) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mitsuo Takashino (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 fails WP:ATHLETE as no evidence he has played a professional match or a notable international match. A google search indicates that he played one rugby league match in front of 1,200 people in 2006 but nothing else. I don't believe that this is enough to make him notable. Mattlore (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A search for him on rugbyleagueproject.org turned up nothing. Mattlore (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete The league in question is listed as "amateur" here:
http://www.ask.com/Japan_national_rugby_league_team.
The only other item I could find on this individual was a mirror and the AfD itself. Still, if other references can be added and the player shown to be notable in some way we haven't seen, always willing to reverse. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Minor sourcing problems, perhaps, but a generally excellent article about an organization meriting WP coverage. Will be helpful to WP users, not selling anything. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑