Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 19 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Me' Mini Post (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 per WP:WEB, zero mention of this online apart from company site, this article and a Crunchbase entry. Single WP:Primary source is sole reference in article, no references from WP:Reliable sources. First-person personal account of site's construction suggests WP:Conflict of interest. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hodara Real Estate Group (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:CORP: all available sources appear to be local, promotional and link-sharing sites. I could not find coverage of any significant depth in independent sources. Not presently a notable organization. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Blasey (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)

BLP of a musician which doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Per MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". There is no indication that this individual has demonstrated notability outside of The Clarks. All sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY and Facebook. SnottyWong  22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeopardy!. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Clue Crew (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 aspect of a television game show. WP:NOTINHERITED, and this is a clear example of a minor, non-notable feature of production for a television show. Main television show article does not even mention Jeopardy! Clue Crew within the article.

Sottolacqua (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge into Jeopardy!. The Clue Crew is an important and recurring part of Jeopardy and should be mentioned in the article. There are various news and non-jeopardy.com results in Google, however I'm not sure it would be enough to warrant their own break-out article yet. -Addionne (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep; the point here is that the main Jeopardy! article is already large and bloated; this is significant information pertinent to the show but for which it is appropriate to spin-off into a sub-article. AfDing this article will only result in the merging of the information into the main article, bloating it, and compelling it to be spun off again. Robert K S (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article survived an earlier AfD (Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bart Hendrikx) but was later speedy deleted per CSD#A7 (Logs).

  1. Concern = fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), references don't match most stated claims or not completely. Also nominated on Dutch Knowledge (XXG) . Looking at his IMDb biography it seems that everything is just a bit polished up.
  2. Concern 2 = promo pushing
  3. Concern 3 = sock puppets. Main author is under investigation for sockpuppetry on the Dutch Knowledge (XXG) (see here sockpuppet request (in Dutch)). There is severe suspicion that user Bart hendrikx (renamed to Pim Sticks, request), User:Toos53 and several others are identical. IP-numbers seems to link to related companies.

If I didn't fill this out correctly, sorry. This is strange territory for me. Help is always accepted. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 York Region District School Board#Elementary schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable elementary school fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong  22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine's List of The 20 Hottest Young Royals (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 as WP:COPYVIO. This article contains no commentary. It is a simple reproduction of a subjective list created by the magazine for publication with the express purpose of selling magazines and as such is violation of their intellectual property. After Midnight 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete 100% agreement with nominator. This is just a reproduction of the list, not an article about the list. These types of lists are trivial, regardless of other media mentioning them. I know that for the most part WP editors are not trying to rip anyone off but still we need to be careful about using copyrighted information without permission. There are other articles about this kind of list that should also be deleted. -Steve Dufour (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone decides at a later date that the list itself is notable enough to warrant an article about the actual list, then that's a different matter. But, as pointed out above, this is just a reproduction of a list based on purely subjective opinions. CLW (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep; Not copyvio it is not a reproduction of the article, but essentially a mere summary table of contents saying who the people covered are, and giving our own pictures of them. Look at the article--it has much more content. A table of contents is not copyvio. All major Forbes lists are in my opinion notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jovi Ware (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)

Subject does not appear to meet the Notability (sport) requirements, particularly those reserved for High School sports people; High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites along with most sport specific publications. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage, especially game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews E. Fokker (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

New York Hospitals (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)

EP with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DisTract (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)

Questionable notability, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this software; the name doesn't help, either. Software is apparently unfinished and official website is apparently dead, so I don't think we will be getting any more coverage of it. T. Canens (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Jay (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)

Subject of the article is of no importance or significance: i.e. a real person, who appears NOT to meet criteria for notability for inclusion. Also main editor of this article appears to have a close connection with the subject: i.e. person himself . Mootros (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a promotional (auto)biography, and fails to establish notability as per WP:BIO. This is related to AfD Harsh Vardhan Jain. -Addionne (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • KINDLY SEE THE TALK PAGE OF ARTICLE AND THEN YOU WILL FIND THE CORRECTIONS ALREAY DONE LONG BACK.
Talk:Jagmandar Dass Jain
HARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Potentially Relevant Discussion
    • Thanks to User:Bigger digger for some of these facts:
    • Hewlitt Polytechnic - web hosting account suspended.
    • Aboutus.org (refs:10) - is a user-editable website information site.
    • East India Company (ref 11) - Mr. Jain's assertion to ownership comes in a comment below the article, which has no mention.
    • Reference 13 is a forum thread discussing the comment in ref 11 above.
    • Reference 15 is a Knowledge (XXG) article on what a Rolling Mill does.
    • Reference 16 is a Knowledge (XXG) article on ISI certification.
    • Reference 17 is a legal proceeding that indicates that Jain Rolling Mill did offer a tender to supply the government.
    • Jainconference.com (ref 20, 27) has no mention of Jagmandar Dass Jain anywhere on the site.
    • allindiasteelra.com (ref 22, 25) has no mention of Jagmandar Dass Jain anywhere on the site.
    • bhartiyajainmilan.com (ref 23, 28) has no mention of Jagmandar Dass Jain anywhere on the site.
    • jainworld.com (ref 26) is a bibliography. It does not name president of any organization, nor does it reference Mr. Jain.
    • Remaining references and external links are either repeats of above or hvjain.com / jaingroup.co.uk - which are the same site.
  • -Addionne (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails everything! Probably a hoax. No WP:RS that even mention his name, let alone give in-depth coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Horrible? I kept seeing "horrible" and then noticed that it was "hon'ble" or something. Is this incipient dyslexia? If these photos aren't photoshoplifted and are indeed of him, might this fellow have some minor notability for celeb handshaking? -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
'Honourable' is a standard title for certain politicians and lesser nobility in the UK. It's always abbreviated to 'Hon'. I must confess to reading this new-to-me version as 'horrible' at first. As to handshakes and such, it's quite possible to be a very minor speaker at something, or to simply BS one's way in, and get photographed. It is also marvellous what they do with Photoshop these days. (They, not me. I've got it and simply can't understand it.) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per these reasons and those in the Harsh Vardhan AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Another load of unreliable refs. Mind you, one or two at a quick (and weary...) glance might show the existence of someone of this name. (There is also a judge by the name, but he was born long before 1940.) Will look again when I wake up... Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Query Has anyone looked at the photo? It appears to be passport photo size and possibly scanned from somewhere. Why is he in uniform? "Mr Jain started as a Civil Engineer, employee in Indian Military Engineering Services" - can anyone identify the uniform and ribbons? He only was in this service about two years according to the article. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr Jain was appointed as Honorary "Commanding Officer" Civil Defence, India. First read the article and then comment, I think you people only know how to talk and point the things.
WHAT IS HONORARY DO YOU KNOW ?
Don't jusk put your nose here and there and talk shit everywhere you want.
To reach at this level is unimaginable by you lads OK.
HARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
These editors are trying to help! Bigger digger (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
We see that, and with this honour we would expect some announcement on the part of Civil Defence. Can you find somewhere where Civil Defence or the press announced this? It would go a long way towards establishing notability. -Addionne (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Honorary means unpaid, or paid a nominal sum for legal reasons (something like 1 Re per month). In the case of a university degree, it means no course has been attended, but the degree is awarded based on outside actions. This is an honorary position - i.e. unpaid. (I used to be a lexicographer....) Peridon (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Response. The uniform appears to be for the Home_Guard_(India), a paramilitary organization. You can see here some officers of the home guard - the colours and the hat appear to be the same. The article claims he holds the title of "Commanding Officer", Civil Defence in the infobox.
More Factfinding:
  • ...Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain, Secretary - Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India early 1960s)...: rajyasabha.nic.in - the official site of the Parliament of India, has no mention of anyone by the name Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain or any combination of these names. They have a list and a short bio of all members since 1952.
  • ...He is Fellow of Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (FRSA) England.... Here I think we are talking about the younger Jain - but http://royalsociety.org - the website for this society, maintains a record of all past and current fellows. No Jains are listed in this record.
  • Smt. Ganga Devi - Neither of the Indian legislative houses, Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha have this person listed on their website.
-Addionne (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Important note Anyone can be an FRSA for the cost of joining. FRS is a different matter. They are not the same organisation at all. The Royal Society is for Science; the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is for what it says. I don't doubt that he is entitled to use FRSA. I could be if I joined them and paid my fee. So could you. FRS is an important thing. (So is the unrelated RA - from the Royal Academy of Arts.) FRSA is anybody's to get. The link you checked is the Royal Society not the RSA which is at http://www.thersa.org/about-us and has 27,000 Fellows... Peridon (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC) ::::I'd better just add that the RSA is a totally legit organisation, and not some fancy titles-for-cash outfit. They used to run a commercial examination programme, but that's been merged with OCR now. The fees for fellowship are for funding projects, not for expensive cars, etc, as can be the case with a lot of titles and initials 'awarded' by numerous scam and fake outfits. Peridon (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, my mistake. I wonder if FRSA finds it a benefit to have that kind of accidental association? -Addionne (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I used to confuse them before I had some involvement with RSA (and NVQ) exams. I would think they do benefit from it - at least, some of those joining up will expect to... Peridon (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Exterminate (spoken in Dalek voice) for reasons amply explained above. Moreover, considering the degree to which his hagiographer has attended to the niceties of what the "sources" actually say, I doubt what he says about the copyright status of the photographs that are used -- which could be recycled in some article in some other language about the Jain lads. So if I were more familiar with the workings of Wikimedia Commons, I'd direct my flamethrower at the files there too. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, HARRYMAGIC has been blocked as a sockpuppet. DS (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust Contribs 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Eataly (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 more indication of Notability beyond it opening a month ago failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. Well, if Michael Bloomberg went out of his way to mention it favorably, then that counts for something, too. 50,000 square feet is also pretty big. I don't think this article is doing any harm to Knowledge (XXG), either. It's in need of improvement, of course. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • keep - I added some addition more recent sources and reviews - it has only been open a month has been gaining considerable coverage and praise. There are many more sources that can be added, but wikipedia is not a one man job! Tduk (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This article about a quite unusual type of business now has a good assortment of reliable sources showing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am going to expand the article some -- Eataly in New York is a spinoff of the original Eataly in Turin (See Eataly on Italian wikipedia ) which has also received massive coverage.--Milowent • 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Jeebus, there are so many articles about Eataly out there I am dumbfounded. It really is a chain, though NY branch had additional partners. The Atlantic even called Eataly "the Supermarket of the Future" in 2007. Changing my !vote to Super-duper Strong Keep.--Milowent • 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep if anyone wants to improve on the article, focus on the business angle -- what it says about high-end retailing, branding and the brilliance of their rollout (I received an email from a food-obsessed and rich Indonesian friend that told me he was planning a trip to new york to visit this dump). I suspect it will all go belly up in a few years, and be looked at in business school classes, but i digress.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of the cites I have added would allow for the type of expansion you suggest. It sounds like the next step up from Dean & Deluca, which seems to have hung on ok.--Milowent • 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill C-215 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a failed piece of proposed legislation. It did not receive consensus and was therefore not enacted. The article's name is also ambiguous; "Bill C-215" has been used several times when proposed legislation has been introduced. (see this link, for an example from 2005.) PKT(alk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The consensus is for deletion on the basis that the subject fails the relevant inclusion guidelines. The consensus in respect of the coverage presented is that (a) it does not establish notability and (b) is related only to one event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Disputed prod. Disputer said there were lots of google hits, however most if not all of the google hits I have looked at are trivial coverage and not enough to establish notability. He is a non-notable amateur hockey player who has yet to play professionally or meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Players at this level are routinely deleted. DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that even the "1E" isn't that notable. He got drafted. So did 210 other people that week. Like graduating from Harvard, it's an accomplishment, but not the basis for an article. Mandsford 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Prince Mohammed bin Faisal I bin Al Hussein El-Hashemite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was PRODded in 2008 with the reason "Probable hoax, no mention of a second son for King Faisal I of Iraq in genealogies on the Iraqi Royal Family", and deleted. Undeletion has been requested by an IP, so I have restored it and bring it here. I have found nothing online that did not appear to be a Knowledge (XXG) mirror. The official Jordan government page on the Hashemite Royal Family shows that King Faisal I had only one son, Ghazi. The only link in the article goes to an organization called "Royal Academy of Science International Trust" which appears to be real and claims to have been founded by Prince Mohammed; but per WP:V we should not keep this without a reliable source for the claim that Faisal I had a second son. The SPA author also created articles about the Prince's son (PRODded) and daughter (deleted at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite, where other evidence is cited that Faisal I had only one son). JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the nom's statement, apparently. :P Silverseren 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to enough about RASIT to suggest that it's real: the question is, was the guy who founded it a son of King Faisal, which is the article's principal claim? JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that depends on whether you feel that RASIT is trustworthy in its claim then, doesn't it? Silverseren 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well its is not independent of the founder, is it?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they have an interest in a royal founder, so that they can put "Royal" in their title; I certainly would not regard them, unsupported, as a reliable enough source to counter the Jordanian one above, plus , , etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Changed my mind, better to hash this out thoroughly. Nevertheless the previously deleted article already mentioned RASIT as well, but without link to a statement. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The NGO exists. I can reference it to more than just its own website. The person who founded it does appear to style himself as Prince Mohammed bin Faisal I bin Al Hussein El-Hashemite. His sons and daughter exist; most have little attributed to them, but his daughter works for the NGO and is quoted in third-party sources as a spokesperson at times. However, there's not enough there to make a biography on any of these people. If the founder of this NGO was in fact the son of King Faisal I, and pretender to the throne of the Kingdom of Iraq, then there would be no question about notability. But I can't confirm that at all. Not only would I treat the Jordanian government family tree as definitive, absent compelling contradictory evidence, but multiple sources identify King Ghazi as the only son of King Faisal. These include several books (Google Books search for "only son of King Faisal" is productive) and journal articles, including this Middle East Policy article ("The death of King Faisal I in September 1933 and the succession of Ghazi, his only son, to the throne signaled this new period in Iraqi politics."). I'm at a loss to explain the claims made by the NGO's founder (you'd think someone would have noticed and said something one way or the other...), but unless a great many highly reputable sources are wrong, they cannot be accurate. I don't think we have any choice but deletion unless there's more information forthcoming. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There is also no shortage of sources discussing the line of succession of the Royal House of Iraq. In 1958, following the death of King Faisal II, that title in pretense was uniformly considered to have passed to Prince Zeid bin Hussein. According to the November 1943 Iraqi constitution, agnatic heirs of King Hussein of Hejaz would only become eligible for succession to the Iraqi throne in the case of the extinction of the agnatic line of King Faisal I. Following Zeid's death in 1970, the title in pretense passed to his son Ra'ad bin Zeid (notwithstanding a completing claim by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, also descended from Hussein of Hejaz, but not via the male line), as confirmed by the government of Jordan. Regardless, neither Zeid nor Ra'ad nor Ali would have had any claim if there was a living second son of King Faisal I. It's been over 50 years since the death of King Faisal II; I'm pretty sure they would have noticed by now. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
When Ghazi died in 1939, Faisal II was only three years old; if there had been a living brother of Ghazi, as the young King's uncle and nearest male relative, he would surely have been Regent and been in the history books for that reason; but the Regent was actually 'Abd al-Ilah, a cousin of Ghazi. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Angouleme archeology and history museum, Société archéologique et historique de la Charente (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 am proposing this for deletion. It has been at the bottom of the unpatrolled list for 30 days and if nothing is done it will tacitly default to keep. This is a copyvio through translation from the French of various blocks of texts taken from http://limousin-grandmont.com/cariboost1/index.htm. What the bibliographical sources in the footnotes contain, w have no way of knowing, and the links to the maps are not relevant. A few sentences in the lead have been taken and translated from the fr.Wiki article. The creator /translator of the article may have a COI. Kudpung (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't find any with this incorrectly formatted title. You will find them with the correct title Société archéologique et historique de la Charente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability is very tenuous. None of the books published by this organization appear to be notable; ergo, the company likely is not notable either. A quick Google search () shows that the only sources that have written about this company are its own official website (of course) as well as several FRINGE websites, such as that of Israel Shamir. None of the sources appear to be reliable, or sufficient to establish notability. Neither the Southern Poverty Law Center nor the Anti-Defamation League has commented on the subject, nor have any mainstream news outlets. Anti-Semitic, yes. Notable, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Self-published author of questionable notability. Provided sources are mainly blogs. No significant coverage (Twitter mentions are not significant coverage) from independent third-party reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Greetings--I would like to request help/advice for independent authors to establish notability. Would one or two notices in notable publications be sufficient? Before that is established, I believe Ms. Scott has established some level of notability so far, within the independent writing/publishing sphere. Re: "Publetariat.com", which publishes "the most valuable content from the web for indie authors and small imprints"--this is a citation of Ms. Scott's contributions to the burgeoning field of independent writing/publishing. Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)? Elfpunk (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: P.S. The very concept and model of Knowledge (XXG) itself is based on self-publishing--I think this should be taken into consideration, with regards to subjects or articles that have to do with self-publishing in the digital era. Elfpunk (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete "Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)?" 'Fraid so. If you can show reliable sources to indicate wider spread coverage, maybe, As it stands, the refs list isn't worth tuppence. Have a look at WP:RS to see what is required. As to Knowledge (XXG), it's self-publishing - in a way. It is moderated and supervised by thousands of people, whereas self-publishing of books is governed solely by the funds available. Self-published books can become notable - or be taken up by the 'mainstream' publishers - but it's usually a long-term process or a wild exception. There's no evidence here of either. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment While I have no opinion about this specific article and nomination, perhaps it is time to begin asking ourselves in this ebook era whether notability guidelines need to be adjusted for self-publishing ebook authors. Specifically, might it not be more reasonable to look at these things according to some sort of quantitative-output parameters rather than relying upon "significant coverage" in the ever-less-relevant mainstream media? This applies for both books and music and even to some extent to indie filmmaking. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the existing Notability Guidelines are looking long in the tooth... Carrite 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I made a similar comment a while back re WP:MUSIC, discussing a group that had no records but had a song with 1 million+ YouTube hits. The response was more or less that people weren't willing to add YouTube hits to the WP:MUSIC notability markers, at least not yet. And a better case could be made for music, where album sales are plummeting and the Billboard album charts don't mean much anymore. Also, views or downloads (if free) can be gamed, and there isn't a reliable third-party source that counts these things, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Appreciate the info + comments. I would make a suggestion for notability guidelines to be looked at (with regards to self-publishing authors, who can also publish in hardcopy via Print-on-Demand systems), if I knew who to contact / where to post the suggestion. As an aspiring published author, I have observed the ways and means of the publishing industry for some time. For example, book publicists:

"work with editors at newspapers, magazines, and websites to obtain positive reviews and create feature coverage for book" .

There is no way to determine which author (traditionally published, or not) has attained credibility in this way, unless they make a statement. Is this truly credible, in a 3rd party neutral kind of way, when the credibility from the source could have been purchased/bought? Elfpunk (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Greetings--I've contacted the author. She might be able to score a feature on "new media literature" on Salon.com (she has "some contacts who might be able to help her out"). I'll keep a lookout if/when the feature appears, as I believe that is a reliable source indicating some notability. Maybe she could use that as leverage to get the minimum multiple articles/reviews from non-self-published sources. Elfpunk (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Found zero hits on gnews. All references are to SPS'es. Fail WP:AUTHOR which requires at a minimum "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Until such references exist the article should be and remain deleted. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per the above; no news hits, no reliable sources, no pass on GNG or WP:AUTHOR. That being said, if anyone wants to overhaul WP:BIO to include self-published sources, I commend them to the appropriate talk pages to discuss the same and lobby for consensus to reflect their POV. Until that happens, we'll have to go with the current requirements of WP:RS.  Ravenswing  19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hello Ravenswing, thanks for mentioning about WP:BIO to include self-published sources / reflection of POV. I'll gather my thoughts on the existing notability guidelines for self-publishing book authors, before lobbying for consensus on the WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR talk page. Elfpunk (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakti (2010 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)

Fails as per Future Films criteria of WP:FILMS Mspraveen (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches wins list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There already exists a more comprehensive article, List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins, which includes not only Division I head coaches but also all NCAA levels' coaches with at least 600 wins. The article I'm nominating is basically a subset of it, rendering it obsolete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jerome Grandsire and Emmanual Marty and redirect Funpause to Big Fish Games. –MuZemike 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article fails to provide any indication of notability, nor any supporting references. Having worked at a company with best-selling games, unfortunately, is not enough to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) page. I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Emmanuel Marty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Funpause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Addionne (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Books are self-published ("A. A. Alvarez Publishing"). Rd232 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Self-published book ("A A. Alvarez Publishing"); major contributor to this and A. A. Alvarez appears to be the author. Rd232 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. While I think being self-published books can be notable, in this case I'm not so sure. A vast majority of the reviews seem to either be user-reviews or places that are designed for authors to actually review their own books. I could find no independent sources after a quick search. And though it's possible that digging deeper might reveal some, if the author (which I think is a reasonable assumption in this case) can't locate any news sources or press, it's a good chance that none exist. -Addionne (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Just double checked. There is an article on the author, but it's up for deletion too. Anyway he should keep trying. If you can sell the movie rights then WP will be all over it. -Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CopyVio, no evidence of suitable cc license  Ronhjones  22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Surface Festival (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)

With a prize pot of £100,000 and final events taking place at the O2 Arena, this festival should be more notable, but apparently it isn't. Only one significant result in gnews: a local paper covering this year's winner (along the lines of "home town band makes good"). All provided references are from primary sources (the festival's own website and its MySpace page). WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, this article was uploaded today and I am unsure why exactly it is being marked for deletion. It seems the point of view of Dan61 is that a search on gnews is the way to determine whether an article should stay up. Is this correct? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.3.220 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply The article is marked for deletion for two reasons:
  1. It is a direct copy of the text at http://surfacefestival.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/surface-festival-moves-forward-into-2011/, which makes it a copyright violation.
  2. The Surface Festival does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources (as indicated by a lack of results when using the Google News search engine on the phrase "Surface Festival") which is the basic criterion for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. The blog is owned by the contributor, so it's not a copyright issue. If you Google "Surface Festival" there are lots of worthy news stories on blogs etc, however, if you feel that the Festival is not worthy of Wiki and does not fit your criterion please delete as appropriate. However, we would be sad to see it go :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply Just because someone says that "I own that content so there is no copyright" that doesn't make it so. Since Knowledge (XXG) accounts are essentially anonymous, there is no way to verify that the person is telling the truth. There are ways to donate copyrighted material, but that will not address the notability issue. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, as there is no editorial fact-checking process. Lack of coverage in any legitimate media is problematic for a festival that purports to be so extensive. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan, The reason there is not much out there in terms of “news” is because the Surface Festival launched on 1st October 2010. Therefore it has only been around for 19 days. In 2011 the Festival claims 500 shows, 24 global sponsors, 14 cities across the U.K. and Europe and £100,000 of prizes to be won at the o2 in London. Over the coming months one will see major articles about the event in key publications that are relevant to the music industry. The news stories about this event will grow substantively in the coming months. May I suggest to you therefore that it would be wise to keep the article and to reassess its suitability in a month or so.

In respect of the copyrighted material, I completely agree with you that it is impossible to ascertain whether permission has been granted unless proof is given. Therefore I can arrange for an email from Surface Festival to be sent tomorrow to Wiki confirming permission for the material to be used. If a reference is required on the page we can add that too. Please advise on the best course of action. Thanks for your time and assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the festival has just launched, it is probably not yet notable, although it may become so. Claims that the organizers make about the possibilities of this festival are not reliable sources. It could well be that the first venue turns out so badly that all of the sponsors pull out and the festival will die there. Since Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball, the presumed future notability of an event cannot be used to justify its coverage in Knowledge (XXG). As for the copyright issues, you can pursue that if you wish, but given the notability issues (or lack thereof), it may not be worth your efforts. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is complete nonsense and of course will not happen. Clearly the article will be removed, therefore please feel free to remove the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "clear" about the outcome of this discussion. So far only two users have chimed in. More input from other users is needed to reach consensus. There may well be a lot of users who disagree with me. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are waiting on the outcome can we remove the massive red box at the top of the article which suggests the page is about to be deleted. It looks messy and ruins the article. If this cannot be done please remove the article, or the original poster (my collegue) can remove it tommorow when she gets into the office, if that helps. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Articles for deletion notice cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we will remove the artical tommorow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.136.229 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Self-promotional autobiography, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO in any case. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO; tone of article is highly WP:PROMO; the few references that actually support the claims made don't appear to be WP:Reliable sources. For example, claims of being an "Emissary for many Countries" is referenced by a listing on www.consul.cc, "The Consular Chamber of Commerce", a "who's who" type pay-per-listing site. Top Jim (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As the Article was first made by name HV Jain', but the administrators changed it to Harsh Vardhan Jain'
Kindly do the needful
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Article is been written for other person then how can it be a self promo.
It is been requested to kindly again review the matter of deletion please, as all necessary changes has been done accordingly. Deletion of words & phrases like - "Emissary for many Countries" , "The Consular Chamber of Commerce".
But as a matter of fact Consul.cc is a government site which states the status for Ambassoadors, Diplomats etc, But as administrators doesnot wish that such info, so it is been deleted accordingly.
As I would request you to contact User:Deb as a lot of help and contribution was done in the article, Kindly see the last Article before deletion please, so that the contribution can be seen there, and a guidance was given to the wikipedia new users.
It is been requested kindly see that since 6 - 8 weeks no problem was associated with article deletion etc, and no prior notice was given regarding the deletion of the article, today only in 5 - 10 mins all articles were deleted.
It is been requested to serve a notice before hand and a guidance to review & for correction of Article.
It is been requested that kindly see that how much time & efforts a person does for updation, maintaining, etc for an Article. But in last without any mistake it gets deleted, Hours & Hours are there inputed in writing a good Article.
It is been requested that the Article has been in total Guidelines of wikipedia including references & Conflict of Interest, as all the prior mistakes were pointed by User:Deb, and accordingly all the corrections were done long time back.
It is a request to kindly re-add the Article which was deleted today, as that was prepared with all guidelines & efforts, as in history it can be seen easily.
Kindly review the History for last 45 days for the article Harsh Vardhan Jain, and if in last 45 days if anytime a deletion post has been posted to the article then kindly delete it, otherwise please re-add the article.
Looking forward & kind request for addition of the Article.
Regards,HARRYMAGIC (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Busy lad. RSA and ROSL are pay to join - you too could become an FRSA quite easily. As to other things - extremely promotional tone. I got told off once for using the word 'vanity', so I won't call this a vanity page. It looks like another item in a collection of everywhere you can get your name, starting (alphabetically) with aboutus. "Presently Mr Jain is working actively with the organizations in India, United Kingdom, Middle East, Mauritius, Eastern Europe and in Central African Continent. Considered amongst one of the Liaison man and Consultants throughout the Globe. he is currently engaged in brokerage, trading and consultancy activities of Fertilizer, Chemicals, Iron & Steel, Natural Gas, Defence products, Oil & Petroleum and all related products & its derivatives." - I take this to mean he buys and sells things. In 11 Gpages (after minusing a mathematician of the same name and ignoring a biologist too), I couldn't find a reliable reference. Everything like twitter and blogs, yes. No emissaries or brokers. Some of the stuff is probably other people of the same name (I suffer from the same problem outside...), but there is still a lack. With a rewrite and removal of peacock phrases, and solid references (see Top Jim's post above), I would have no objection to Mr Jain having an article and have nothing whatever against him personally (never even heard of him before this...), but notability must be shown and referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Kindly see-
As the Article was first made by name HV Jain, but the administrators changed it to Harsh Vardhan Jain
Kindly do the needful Find sources:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
HARRYMAGIC (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Many Viewers Not to Delete, Kindly see that in within 2 - 3 weeks the Article has been viewed by approx 2000 viewers, It may relate the positive response for the Article. And if there were any problem or wrong info supplied then it would have been in notice long back, Thus it is requested to kindly add the Article which was deleted earlier.122.162.81.180 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 122.162.81.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Knowledge (XXG) doesn't operate by popularity polls or viewer counts. By the way, you may have found a feature I haven't. How do you know how many people have viewed the article? I use the old format but I don't remember that feature when I tried the new one. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not knowing that Knowledge (XXG) doesnot want popular Articles, which will increase the use of Knowledge (XXG) by common people.
But I think that if 00.00001% contribution I do in Knowledge (XXG) Articles - It will lead in increase of popularity of Knowledge (XXG) in Common people.
ThanksHARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Foundation The Game (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 browser-based computer game. Whilst no doubt a fun game, it's developed by a redlinked developer, has had no mentions in the press that I can find, and makes no claim to notability in the article itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • (Speedy) Delete. I have to agree, despite my love of the Foundation series, this article does nothing to assert notability of the game - and I have been unable to find references other than a directory listing of the game, as well the official website. -Addionne (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • userfy Well, since this isn't a big budget game with hundreds of thousands of players, I can't argue. There are also some french forums which talk about the game ]. What is the exact criteria for notability? Elryacko (currently away from my home computer) 207.233.32.18 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG):WEB has the notability criteria for websites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Case Files: 7 (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 has no information and no references - and though I am sure the game will come out, this article would invariably have to be completely rewritten and renamed. It is a prime example of using Knowledge (XXG) as a Crystal Ball, and gives the impression of having been written for promotional reasons. I am reluctantly putting it here instead of nominating for speedy deletion, which is where my instinct would have me put it. -Addionne (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the release is verifiable a redirection to the series article might be a good idea.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would normally suggest a redirect, per WP:PRODUCT, but in this case we don't even know the game's title, so not a viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait for two weeks for the following reasons:
    • According to to this (Oct 12) interview from the Mystery Case Files facebook page there is a game "currently in development" although it could be in its early stages.
    • In this thread on the Big Fish Games forum (created two days ago for discussion about MCF7) the moderators say that the website is not up to date.
    • There have been clues about a continuation to the Return to Ravenhearst storyline in a previous game.
I think the best thing to do is wait for two weeks to see if any new information appears. George (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Taylor (musician) (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 appear notable as it is, even though he has worked with some who apparently are. Another indicator of lack of notability (though by no means policy-related or fool proof) is that the article was not created until the date of this person's death. -Lilac Soul 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not notable? He played on 5 Grammy nominated albums, and was one of the most well respected side men in the business. To be notable is not just to be famous. Some of the best musicians in the world are mostly sidemen. His contributions to a great number of blues albums is definitely a mark of notoriety. He was an arranger, composer, musician and author. He was a teacher. Through all those things, he impacted a number of people. Again, he was continually asked to perform and record with the biggest names in the blues industry. That's notable. The current list of recording credits is nowhere near complete, he has played on hundreds of records, and has toured with the best blues musicians in the world.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Piecewise regression analysis (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 single-source article where the main author fails to follow Knowledge (XXG) guidelines in many respects, despite discussion on Talk page. While the article has multiple references, the topic is about some difference from standard procedures, where there is only a single source for this idea, and where this idea is not actually explained. There are many other problems. My suggestion is Userfy rather than deletion, but there seem many hurdles to cross before this article could be made acceptable. Melcombe (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To All

As Melcombe said, this article is from a single soruce. Right, since so far there is only one paper in a conference proceedings (Note: please see Correction below ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)). However, the ideas as well as the analytical logic of the new method are right. The current ones take an optimization to determine the threshold as well as the expectation of piecewise models. This is wrong. Why? The segmented variabel X, the combined residuals R of all piecewise models and the matrix M of the piecewise regression coefficients are all random variables in the data iteration for searching the unknown threshold. How can we use the min(R) to determine the expectation of the M, E(M)? Is the correspondence between the min(R) and the E(M) a certain correspondence? The answer is NOT. It is a random correspondence. What corresponds to the E(M) is the E(R) but not the min(R). Thus, the current methods are theoretically incorrect in Mathematics!!!

The second serious mistake is the assumption of the enforced continuity. This is not a statistical hypothesis, no one can assume the continuity in a random space if the unknown threshold(s) exist in it. In a staitstical point of view, we need a probabilistic inference for the continuity.

Since the optimization is wrong, and the continuity cannnot be enforcedly assumed, we cannot take the current methods to estimate the unknown thresholds. We must find another way.

No one has ever doubted the current methods. Ligong Chen is the first and the only one.

I strongly urge you to retain these new ideas so that more and more people could have an opportunity to realize the mistakes in the current system. However if you think that this article violate the wiki rules due to some original researches, I can eliminate the part of "Preperation of Concepts".

I have invited many people to discuss the new analytical logic and the new method. Actually the new method had been discussed with many statisticians at the two conferences (2007 JSM and 2009 JSM), no one could deny it. I believe that more and more people will accept it.

Due to my English writing skill is poor, I wish someone could help it and clean up all linguistic issues.

Anyway, please give me a last notice before you delete this article from the wikipedia if you insist to delete it. I would like to make a copy before the deletion.

Thanks a lot! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

|}

Survey

  • As I have stated at the discussion of the webpage of this article, I am still working on this article, and once I finish it I will propose to merge it with the segmented regression since both as well as the spline are belong to a same domain. However, in my personal opinion, we need a formal terminology in the area, and the "piecewise regression" and the "threshold" should be the best than any others. I would like to emphasize again, the current methods are theoretically incorrect in Statistics as well as in Mathematics since they violate the fundamentals of the Statistics. ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Evaluate with the Deletion Policy

According to the weblink, I carefully checked the policy, and made an evaluation for the article as following:

"Copyright violations and other material violating Knowledge (XXG)'s non-free content criteria"

The article does not violate any copyright.

"Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish"

The article is clearly not a vandalism but a serious introduction to a new statistical method.

"Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)"

The article is not an advertising or other spam.

"Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)"

Yes, the article can be considered to be merged with the existing article, such as segmented regression and/or Spline,etc.

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"

The article cited many literatures from the published journals and conference proceedings. It is not a hoax.

"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"

The source of the article is reliable since it is an official website of the American Statistical Association, and the paper published in the conference proceedings can be officially cited in any case.

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)"

I don't exactly understand this term.

"Articles that breach Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on biographies of living persons"

The article does not breach the policy on any of living person.

"Redundant or otherwise useless templates"

The article is not redundant but still in construction and will merge with others.

"Categories representing overcategorization"

The article does not represent an overcategorization. It is in the domain of Regression in Statistics.

"Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy"

The article is not unused or obsolete. It is new. However, I cannot be ensured if it violates the non-free policy on not.

"Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace."

The article is not for a personal purpose but for introducing a new method into a wider range of the public.

"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

This term needs to be clarified by an authorized person.

Therefore, I strongly urge that you change your mind to delete it from the wikipedia. A formal merge procedure is needed as soon as possible once I finish it. I believe that the people in the future will realize that this article as well as all the discussion on it will be an important event in the history of Statistics since it will cause a strong impact to the current knowledge system of Statistics. ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

|}

May I have your reason for you changed your mind? Please give your discussion in detail but not just a statement. This is not a mathematical style. I have discussed term-by-term to clarify that the article is not subject to the delettion policy of the wikipedia. So, you must give your discussion here. Thanks! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with nominator. Lengthy OR essay-style expansion of idea with a single primary source - does not show significant coverage in secondary sources, which is required by WP:NOTE. Articles cannot be justified on the grounds that the topic may become notable in the future. No objection to moving essay to user space if the author wishes to work on it outside article space. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This reads more like a thesis than an encyclopedia article. An article could probably be written on Piecewise regression with multiple secondary sources and giving an overview of the subject rather a narrow aspect of it. I'm not sure how much of the material here would be included in such an article but I don't think it would be much. It should be noted that the majority of the edits are from a single user and the majority of that user's edits are in this article. This kind of "article as personal web page" practice should be discouraged. It should also be noted that the principal author has created created a number of redirects to this page, many of which have little to do with the subject.--RDBury (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction by Yuanfangdelang

Some people even including myself here thought the methodology in the article Piecewise regression analysis came from a single source. This was wrong. It exists at least two different public sources. One is the Chinese journal of Public Health; and the other is the proceedings of the 2007 JSM and the 2009 JSM. Actually if we take into acount all the other literature in the references, the whole methodology came from more than just the two soruces above since the new method is based on the criticisms on the all existing theories and methods. Therefore, it is a multiple-source article; and the method is an improved one. Thus, I cannot agree with the deletion proposal except in the case that thoes who proposed to delete can prove the all sources listed in the references are not reliable public sources; or they can prove that the new methodology as well as its fundametnals are totally wrong. In fact, no bady can do either.----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot hide my comments and even delete my correction. Thanks! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lorna Bennett (actress) (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)

New article on an actress that doesn't improve on the one deleted after the previous discussion (Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actor)). Similar but not identical to the deleted article so wasn't a G4, so I prodded it but the prod was removed, so bringing it here. It's a shame that we have to waste more time discussing this but... Michig (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Changing the name shouldn't change the result. The only source that might even remotely approach reliability is IMDB, and that was adequately discussed on the last AFD. Kansan (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is vastly different, what about all the new citations and references? How can someone be "barely credited" anyway? You're either credited or not, and from what I've read the vast majority of her roles have been lead, or guest anyway. That just seems spiteful to write that. People don't appear to have looked at the new entry and just jumped to assumptions. From the article I read I can see Lorna Bennett is a busy actress, a playwright who has had professional productions of her work put on, has produced a film with some relatively big names involved AND has directed in the West End, how is none of this notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.198.73 (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — 78.144.198.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established according to WP:ENT. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:GNG. While several references have been offered, they are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They are primarily publicity points for the projects in which she has been involved. Notability not established at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm...four editors in favour of deletion, one SPA/sock wanting it to stay - do we really need to continue discussing this?--Michig (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • SNOW Delete Make that five. Fails WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - The blizzard of references only establish that she is a working actress. The distinct lack of significant coverage indicates she does not meet the inclusion criteria for Knowledge (XXG). -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) there isn't really a policy-based reason to delete the article. Secret 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Spangenberg (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 the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge (XXG):Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Frank's notoriety for decades on the NYC subway beat as the Jeopardy!-winning transit cop, along with his distinguishing height, trademark mustache and soft-spoken manner made him one of the most memorable Jeopardy! contestants. His name frequently comes up on the show as one of the show's greats. His records were longstanding. He was one of the few champions chosen to be highlighted in a "where-are-they-now?"-type "Champion Update" interlude on the Jeopardy! program. Your quotations above give unfair treatment to the subject as they give the impression that all he did was win money. That's not what fixed him in the minds of so many, and the same can be said of several other of your nominations. Robert K S (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment—Appearing on a game show and being remembered for it by your coworkers does not equate to meeting notability guidelines for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). His ("memorable") physical characteristics are not part of the article and should not be used as a factor for determining whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines (and wouldn't be a valid argument, anyway). Appearing on a "where are they now" video on the show's official site also does not elevate the subject's status to meet notability standards here. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Knowledge (XXG) is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Revisiting this after seeing the other Jeopardy winner pages, I note one NY Post cite, which I think can be dismissed under the aegis of NOT NEWS. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Incidentally, Knowledge (XXG) does treat (not "memorialize") certain most notable lottery winners. Abraham Shakespeare is a significant example. I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the most noteworthy game show winners to be similarly treated. We are not talking about dozens of individuals. We are talking about only the most significant record-holders, or those people who are otherwise notable in other fields. Robert K S (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The BLP1E arguments ahve not been rebuted. Consensus to delete has been established. Courcelles 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (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 the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge (XXG):Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show and setting a record in a high school quiz bowl are not criteria that proves notability. Article also contains WP:OR about records he "is believed" to hold, such as "the longest ever 'real-time' champion since he taped his first show on December 14, 2004 and his last regular play show on July 9, 2005" Bulk of statistics in article are also unreferenced. Article contains anectodal mention of a hike the subject made across the US for charity, which again does not prove notability.

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment—This nomination includes remarks directly addressed to the subject's notability ("Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show and setting a record in a high school quiz bowl are not criteria that proves notability. Article also contains WP:OR about records he "is believed" to hold, such as "the longest ever 'real-time' champion since he taped his first show on December 14, 2004 and his last regular play show on July 9, 2005" Bulk of statistics in article are also unreferenced. Article contains anectodal mention of a hike the subject made across the US for charity, which again does not prove notability.") The quotations from earlier AFDs were included because the similar rational and related discussion for their deletion apply to my nomination of this article for deletion. The similar structure of this AFD to other recent AFDs also applies because of the similar notability claims of those articles and the result of the earlier bundled AFD in which they were all included. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

6.5 Jonson (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's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN The article appears to be speculative. The citations failed to provide any information regarding the subject of the article nor were germane regarding the subject matter discussed. The article looks good but fails because there is nothing to write about as there is no information in the the available regarding the subject. Several claims are made, most unlikely none likely to be substantiated.

The cartridge is a project that has been in the works for some years. It is likely a pet project by Jonson vis a vis Jonson Arms. Apart from Jonson Arms no one seems too interested to discuss the topic or write about it.

Possible conflict of interest WP:COI

Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry

Please check Talk:7.62 Jonson regarding the latter two issues. DeusImperator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete Yet another example of someone's personal project. Did a nice job on layout, but serious POV issues and nothing to establish notability, probably because there aren't any good sources. Also mostly just a cut and paste with 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Trout DeusImperator & Keep Seriously DeusImperator? Adding a few dozen citiation needed tags to an article? The proper procedure is to add one top banner mentioning that it has little or no citations. I'm sure in the amount of time you took to add all those tags, you could have found the top banner, shaved, ate lunch, and watched something intersting on TV. Your trout is in the mail. As for the article, I'm sure with one or two passes by someone who knows hunting, the article will be in just as good of shape as any of the thirty other articles on lesser used ammunition. Look at List of rifle cartridges, most have their own pages. The fact that I can find sources means I am voting for a keep. I just don't know enough about the topic to be a useful editor on the page. Sven Manguard Talk 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Without commenting on the subject itself - 32 {{Citation needed}} for one screen of text is too much indeed. Was it worth the time? I don't care about the time wasted by the tagger, but he and people like him steal other editors' time. Editors have to take into account those who would happily tag any word, and effectively have to cite every word where one cite per paragraph would suffice. And then the readers complain about "a sea of footnotes". East of Borschov 09:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have attempted to clean this up. Where appropriate, I have given sections the Unreferenced Section template but in most cases each section had at least one reference anway so between these and the top banner, which I have also added, I think it's all covered. Hope that helps. As far as the article goes, I don't currently have an opinion as I don't know enough about rifle ammunition, or how it is usually dealt with on Knowledge (XXG). I may do some research and come back if I change my view. --Korruski 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - the difference between this and the other minor cartridges is that they actually have sources that talk about them, such as COTW, etc. This article has 4 references none of which mentions the cartridge even in passing. The basic notability problem is at issue here - this is a pet project cartridge, not a commercial cartridge or notable wildcat. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete The article makes many claims which are unsupported. The claims the contributor regarding any numeric values should be supported. There is no evidence of that anywhere. Further to that, what is the Johnson Factor? And how would someone know whether it complies with this Johnson Factor if no one knows what this Johnson Factor could be. And as for the cites no cite provided even relates to the cartridge. Also, what has the Delta L problem got to do with this cartridge? Red herrings? Most of the cites are for areas which made claims which cannot be substantiated or were over reaching. Sorry about the over zealous cites though.

The other thirty or so cartridge are listed and written about and some form of media. However, 6.5 Jonson is listed nowhere. it is not a notable cartridge.

Unsubstantiated claims which were claimed that should be verified:

  • It is a Benchrest cartridge or that it could be used as one: No evidence, pure speculation
  • Great cartridge for anything it is chosen to do: No evidence, pure speculation, peacock
  • It was inspired by three most important cartridge lines: First who says that those are the three most important cartridge lines? And who says this this cartridge is inspired by those cartridge lines?
  • perfected ballistic profile, designated parallactic precision: Huh? I have read many legal briefs and know hoey when I see it.
  • Several companies made cartridge clearly honoring Jonson Labs' earlier worK: Who says this? Which cartridges would this be?
  • one proprietary round uses the exact nomenclature designated: Which one is that? who says?
  • other manufacturers chose to contaminate the Jonson design: Who says that it got contaminate? What is the Jonson design?
  • without a 30 degree shoulder, no round could ever match the characteristics and accuracy of a PPC round: FOOTNOTES #1&#2 Footnoted article does not actually support this claim. So what do we have 2 footnotes supporting this? Anyone actually read the articles cited? In fact neither say ANYTHNG about a 30 degree shoulder. So the fact is that even the footnotes do not support the claims. Red herrings?
  • design is so efficient and forgiving that accuracy loads producing velocities in the 2-3000ft/s range are easily achieved: So efficient, so forgiving, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. What proof is there that it is efficient? What proof is there the it forgives sins :)?
  • they remain the only pure example of the original, digitally-optimized round: Is there proof of this?
  • use them effectively, in conjunction with portable computers... 1400 yd who says so?
  • Claim regarding the 300 Savage footnote: Footnoted #3 No such claim made in the footnote regarding the Savage in the article.
  • Adoption is an accepted practice in the gun world and one which manufacturers have used for decades to take advantage of the marketplace.: Footnote #4 No where does any article state this in the booklet. Or is it supposed to be that the whole booklet is a testament to such the claim and is being used as an example? I don't understand the use of that footnote.

None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities).

I have no doubt that the cartridge can be used to hunt. But is there evidence that it was used to hunt the specified species? And really how many hunters out there hunt with the Jonson cartridges? Not more than a maximum of 5 in total and I am being generous.

As for stealing editors time... Let me explain... No one can be stealing anything that is given away freely. So unless the wiki has chosen to pay an editor, you volunteer your time. If the wiki is stealing your time then find a place that does not steal your time.

DeusImperator (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


KEEP as deletion reasons not supported or referenced

  • 1. The level of informational support required by the one person calling for deletion of articles on Jonson cartridges is not evidenced on any other cartridge article.
  • 2. The reasons given for deletion are not supported or referenced and are themselves heresay. Where are the attacker's credentials? What are the underlying reasons for saying something is not true?
  • 3. Why all the virulence in the comments in this discussion - leads one to assume there is an alternative motive in attacking this well-done article.

Please replace the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles until this discussion can be attended by persons without obvious bias

The references at this top of this page cannot be verified because the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles have been deleted without complete discussion or verification and only the word of one person

  • This is not a personal project but one whose contents have been vetted by the owner/invetor of Jonson Arms, a legitimate firearms and ammunition manufacturer with a current FFL and manufacturing facilities in two states. Just because somebody does not want to do the work to verify information does not make in untenable.
  • There is massive interest in these cartridges, evidenced by the fact that Jonson firearms are made in the US and Australia and sold to customers.
  • The .30 caliber cartridge IS a benchrest round and was designed as such. The round was the first commercial computer generated rifle cartridge and this fact can be documented. The round was designed using the 6mm PPC round as a starting point with the collaboration of Ferris Pindell and Dr. Palmisano, the "inventors" of PPC technology, who could not make a .30 caliber version work. Does one need to reference every statement with manufacturer drawings to convince the wiki community that the statement is true? Take a look at the 6 mm PPC article on wiki. It states, "it is one of the most accurate cartridges available", referenced by an article written on a popular benchrest forum. Is an article written by a forum member now considered gospel?
Fixed with a proper source - now if we could just do the same here. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Inspired by 3 most important cartridge lines. The American, British and German military cartridge lineages fit the description exactly.
  • The cartridge was designed by a computer algorithm that Mr. Jonson named The Jonson Factor.
  • During the 1990s, the Jonson rounds were discussed on rec.guns with Gale McMillan, John Lazzeroni, Rick Jamison, Zareh Ohanian, and others, all of whom built rounds based on the Jonson Factor, which was discussed at length on the board. The 7.62 Jonson was, during testing since 1978, called the 7.82 Jonson and this name was picked up and used by Mr, Lazzeroni, in 1997, to name his Patriot round. The documentation exists that can prove this statement and it has been shown me by the inventor. Again, did anyone ask John Lazzeroni for proof of his concept? I don't see anyone attacking the wiki article on his products.
  • PPC rounds have a 30 degree shoulder. The shoulder angle can be proven mathematically to be a major accuracy feature of any round. Since the PPC rounds are the most accurate ever designed, which is supported in wiki articles, a round designed from the PPCs with the same shoulder angle, no other round could match these characteristics.
  • The round is efficient and this efficiency can be easily shown mathematically. Again, why does this statement need to be proved when it is so obvious to any ballistics aficionado? Some calculations would have answered this question.
  • The Australian manufacturer of Jonson firearms supports the 1400 yards statement.
  • Again, why is this use attacking a simple statement that these rounds were designed with elements that make .300 Savage a good round? The footnote is only so the Savage round can be read about and the elements considered, not "proof" of the statement. Isn't it obvious that he would be the only one that could verify this statement?
  • This last "Adoption" comment states the entire case for ignoring the attack on the Jonson rounds and keeping the articles. The plainly cited article on Remington's adoption of popular wildcats has not been read carefully by the attacker. In the article "Domesticated But Not Tamed" in the reference, Terry Wieland, a well-known gun writer, obviously writing in a Remington-sponsored magazine, states, "Adopting the brainchild of a basement handloader, producing it commercially and adding the name "Remington" has a long and wonderful history."

I will repeat that this is a one-person attack on articles that were well researched, written from interviews with the inventor/designer of the rounds, and it was expected that others would contribute to the efficacy of the information, not attack them for no reason and delete them from wiki for little reason and with no discussion, except his own comments.

Here's one as an example: None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities). See the Delta L note another wiki member made Talk:6.5 Jonson and you'll see this comment is bogus. Meksikatsi (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Commment and above in this response you see the basic problem. The claims above are based on personal knowledge, original research, etc. The core issue of notability and reliable sources is not addressed, which is the reason the cartridge is listed for deletion. If you're aware of reliable sources we can use to substantiate claims in the article and establish notability, then please provide them. But note that "talking to the inventor", "in my expert opinion", forums, etc don't do this. First check the guidelines at WP:RS and then let's improve the article. If sources to establish notability cannot be found, then deletion is appropriate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Comment I agree there might be areas that depend on "talking with the inventor" in this article, however, an article should not be deleted because parts of it are not reliably sourced. My comments on the Talk:6.5 Jonson page address this point. DeusImperator complains that the author references Delta L as not being applicable to the Jonson rounds as they are not CIP or SAAMI registered. Delta L does not only refer to CIP and SAAMI registered cartridges, so is this error alone on the part of DeusImperator enough to disqualify him from commenting on the article? No. Then why should an entire article be deleted on the basis that some of the article's comments are not referenced. Take out the offending comments, sure. But deleting, without proper discussion over time, entire articles that refer to actual, commercially-viable rifle rounds should not happen.

For my personal edification, how would one reference comments in an interview from an inventor? If these articles are deleted, then I agree with meksikatsi that the 6 mm PPC article should go also, for some of the same reasons, for forum articles are not reliable references, as AliveFreeHappy has noted, and that article relies on them. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about parts not being sourced, the basic issue is notability. IE we have to establish notability per WP:Notability, which we have failed to do. Re interviewing an editor, you can't reference such comments - it's not allowed. see WP:OR. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the commetns about the 6 mm PPC article you might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a useful argument in deletion discussions. Note however that the 6ppc article does not RELY on forum sources, it has load data from a national vendor, and an article from a well known gun author to establish notability. That's what we're looking for here. If you can just take the effort you're putting into this and focus on finding such sources, we could all move forward and keep the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not putting that much effort in although others are. I can support the article author and provide some other references, as in the Australian article I just added. But I repeat that I believe the other Jonson cartridge articles should be put back up until a time where it's obvious there are no other references to be made and to let the author fix what is wrong. Putting an article up for AfD and deleting it in the same month without any input from the author or other contributors doesn't seem to be serving the wiki community.

I do see your point on the OtherStuffExists rule but my point was that not all the info in the Jonson articles is undocumented. I think that you can get rid of the offending material without destroying an entire article about an existing and commercially manufactured rifle cartridge and weapons. 100%BulletProof TALK 19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify additionally, the fact the something exists doesn't qualify it for a wikipedia article, which may be where the confusion is coming from. It's about notability. The articles went through the community approved deletion process and while they can be recreated, doing it without addressing the core notability issue will result in them just being deleted again. Let's get the sources figured out on this one if possible, and then look at next steps. If you can find the proper references that show it's notable and the others as well, I'll be happy to provide assistance. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Delta L problem does not apply to this cartridge if one were to look at the min. max chamber dimensions provided it is when the cartridge max published size is greater than the chamber min size published. So how would there be a Delta L problem here? Who published this dimensions? And if it is a wildcat cartridge a Delta L issue is a non-issue because a Delta L issue is ever present. But no one is going to run around screaming Delta L problem Delta L problem Delta L problem. IT IS A GIVEN! If it is a proprietary cartridge the cartridge owner exercises control over reamers etc. so it should not be an issue unless company is unable to maintain and produce equipment to the correct tolerances. All equipment would have to be purchased form Jonson for this cartridge and if the cartridge was not to fit in the chamber who's problem is that? The Delta L is not mentioned in the article but just added whimsically to the references. Someone with a modicum of intelligence removed it as there was nothing in the article talking about it anyway.

I stand by the statement I made regarding the footnotes. None of the 4 mentioned support what they are cited for let alone talk about the 6.5 Jonson. The values referenced by Footnote #1 Where the heck does Layne Simpson talk about the Jonson cartridge in the article 20th Century Top Cartridges does he give any values regarding velocity for the info box? And if foot note #1 is used what is it attempting to cite?

What is the Jonson factor? What is the algorithm. What it is should be defined in some manner or removed. DeusImperator (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Delta L CAN refer to the difference between CIP and SAAMI specs for cartridges but it can also refer to general problems associated with chamber fit due to specification differences. In fact the wiki primary definition is "The delta L problem (ΔL problem) is a condition that occurs regarding certain firearms chambers and their practical incompatibility with ammunition made for the corresponding chambering." In the case of Jonson products, several reamer manufacturers around the world, including Manson Precision Reamers and Clymer Manufacturing Co. in the US, Lipawsky Tools in Belgium, and Morgan Tooling & Measurement in Australia, have been licensed to make Jonson reamers and/or dies for the rounds. In the US, Redding is exclusively licensed to make Jonson dies and can sell anyone die sets for making Jonson rounds as long as Jonson Labs approves the purchase. These diverse sources provide the differences in manufacturing that introduce the Delta L problem to users of Jonson rounds, especially as users can make their own cases from forming die sets made in different countries, with different measurement systems and different tooling. As I understand it, all Jonson products come with specifications from the individual licensees due to these system differences.
It seems the Layne Simpson citation was removed by the author when he removed the part of the article it was in, so that is no longer an issue.
How do you define or come up with a citation about a proprietary piece of software? The company explains this on their web site and as far as I know they can call their process anything they like. This issue is repeated in the Winchester Short Magnum entry. Although most cartridge aficionados recognize the chain of events that took place as the .300 WSM was being developed, the article states that Winchester came up with the round independently of outside influence. Come on. In any case, if a statement about a software program written by Jonson Labs isn't allowed, then any reference to how a manufacturer comes up with products would have to be disallowed, since the technology isn't about to be shared, much less documented publicly to be cited. (Yes, I realize I am flrting with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here). All of this has been removed from the article so it no longer applies anyway. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Cartridge volume, pressure, barrel length, bore friction and propellant are the only considerations as far as bullet velocity is concerned. Whatever is claimed by this Jonson factor would have to follow real world physics. Unless something magical/supernatural is happening inside this cartridge none of these velocity values claimed are approachable. The article is written to increase interest in the cartridge which has no prior notability going for it.

I have run the capacity numbers and have come up with the following a the absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume) the 6.5 Jonson and found this value in grains H2O capacity of 102.4431124 for the 6.5 Jonson. The volume of the .264 Winchester Mag Absolute volume above the belt rim gives 101.9756434 grain of H2O. Obviously if one understands the measurement the .264 Winchester Mag will actually hold about 10 grains more if the volume is calculated in the same manner as the 6.5 Jonson was when not accounting for belt rim volume. So quite a bit extra credit has been provided for the 6.5 Jonson. So following the PV=nRT and F=PA how could the 6.5 Jonson provide a higher velocity than the .264 Win mag given equal pressures (not looking a propellant factors)? Oh that is right MAGIC or in this case the Magic Jonson Factor!!!

I respectfully point out that your calculations are incorrect, which might be influencing your thinking about the cartridges. I have these rounds in LFAD and QL and they predict 83.8 gr. H2O and 84.7 gr H2O respectively. To corroborate, I measured an actual 7.62 Jonson case and my digital scale says it contains 84.5 gr. H20. If you have QL you can put the cartridge dimensions in the program and run the math for the 140 gr Nosler Partition and easily get 3200 fps out of a 24" barrel. It would be quite simple for the company to claim whatever number by simply increasing the length of the test barrel. What attracted me to these rounds in the beginning was their efficiency, which must come from the design. What is efficiency? I encourage you to use a ballistics program and play around with cartridge length. It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically. If that's magic, then QL is predicting it. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
READ what I wrote. "absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume)". Yes the actual overflow volumes are much lower but that calculation was shown to gauge (in the absence of an actual cartridge) the volume. QL is based on VOLUME. They do not make a magical calculations for "their design". LOL. The use the max overflow - bullet shank volume below case mouth and then using the density of the powder find out how much powder it can hold. AND if you bothered reading the disclaimer it says "W A R N I N G. The data provided by QL CANNOT be used as a substitute for information gained from standard handloading manual references; further; it CANNOT used as a substitute for conventional handload development.... " All emphasis theirs not mine." as for "It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically" is true for ANY cartridge not just for your doo-dad. A 300 Win mag burns 25% more powder but produces an increase of around 10% more velocity than the 30-06 and the 300 is a fatter cartridge. The .284 win and the 280 have the same volume but the .284 if fatter design and the velocity is about the same. Equal usable case capacity provides equal velocity if pressures and (powder power factors are equal. The faster a bullet is driven the greater the inefficiency. There is no magic in design. On the Wiki, I too have written BS such as this just because it is repeated in the gun rags so often even though as a physicist I would consider such claims are mostly bunk (very little efficiency can actually be gained at the dimensions of cartridges below 2%), it is NOT my opinion that counts, REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT THE PRIMARY SOURCE NOR DO YOU "INTERVIEW" YOURSELF AS A SOURCE (or even others). All information must be sourced and if enough sources keep repeating the falsehood it "can" be written into the Wiki. Remember the wiki is an encyclopedia if you want to compose an ode to your doo-dad, or sing its praises there are far better venues for that than the Wiki. Reliable sources are a must.
As for influencing my thinking, The only factors here are the pure and utter drivel written by you before the article originator deleted the most of it. The cartridge is insignificant and not noteworthy. And as your stated you do have a WP:COI issue. The references had nothing to do with the article etc. Those are the issues here.
  • Comment there is a lot of back-and-forth re various issues, but the core issue of notability is still a problem. As an example, I queried google for the broader topic of "Jonson Arms" to see what I could find. Under books and scholar, I get zip. Using web with parameters to avoid wikipeida and the jonson website, there are very few hits, and many are echoes of wikipedia, and most are not related at all. Similar is true for "7.62 Jonson" with most being echoes of wikipedia or forums, nothing in the first few pages that could be even close to WP:RS. Ditto for "6.5 Jonson". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Jonson Labs has requested not to be associated with the wiki article under discussion so I believe that should be the end of the discussion. This excerpt from an email to me makes the issue crystal clear. “The company bases our decision on the possibility of negative repercussions with regard to information, with little or no factual representation, disseminated to the public due to the discussion being held on Knowledge (XXG) Projects. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: Jonson Labs choices are not relevant on this issue. It's just a matter of whether we have reliable sources to establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gustavo Calle Gracey (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:ARTIST, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Bet (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 was originally titled Alex King (bet_winner), and was prodded on grounds of WP:SINGLEEVENT, failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E apart from the one event, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources for anything other than the single prank noted. Article has now been renamed, but is still almost entirely about the person who played the prank. The prank itself had brief coverage in the UK national press, but still fails notability per WP:Notability (events) , including WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATION. Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously think we could ever use either of those articles as a reference for anything related to a living person?! If you did, please make sure you read WP:BLP. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't see why not. The Sun isn't exactly renowned for accuracy and balance, but they still wouldn't publish an allegation that serious without evidence to back that up if it goes to court. Failing that, there's quite a bit of interesting material in references 2 and 6 (which came from broadsheets) which have also been glossed over. Not saying we should have an article about that, but there's just as much reason to write this about him as there is for that stunt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deep Democracy Institute (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 has been at Knowledge (XXG) for years, and although there are many versions of the article in the history, it is always at some level of self-promotion. The sourcing in the current iteration of the article is nonexistent. There seems to be a better, more neutral version of the article at this old diff, but in that version as well, the only sources that seem to be writing about this organization are written by the organization's founder. I looked for reliable independent sources] I could use to clean up this article, and didn't find any. Google books wasn't any more help. If no one outside the organization is writing about it, then there's no independent information from which to write a better article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page: Sorry for having been so slow to respond to all of these issues. I created the page initially, which I understand that I shouldn't have done. Others have since picked up an interest in updating the article. I am writing now hoping that it is okay that I add some references here in the deletion discussion. Here are links to some other sites that discuss various things about the Deep Democracy Institute.

http://www.ita2010.com/Max-Schupbach http://eurotas.org/about-us/newsletter/no-60---16-05-2010.html http://www.turningforward.org/associates.html http://www.livingdemocracy.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=103 http://practicalmysticmusings.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/deep-democracy-conflict-resolution-and-polarity/ http://www.processwork.sk/en/contacts.html http://www.aamindell.net/blog/2010-news http://www.janus.org.br/ http://pacificinstitute.org/deepdemocracy.html http://www.iapop.com/dissertations/hamann-organisational.pdf http://www.processworkaustralia.org.au/community.html http://www.dawnmenken.com/contact.html http://processworkireland.org/resources.shtml http://infolokerterbaru.com/info-deep-democracy-institute--facebook.html http://www.aamindell.net/news-2007.htm http://www.processworklane.com/pocr.htm http://events.linkedin.com/Evolutionary-Leadership-Business/pub/448170 http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/08/26/be-gracious-dont-lose-twice/

Stanfordsiver (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This Deep Democracy Institute page is important in that there is discussion of it in numerous other places, and this is growing. The Institute has a number of projects which is drawing interest in different parts of the world due to the principles of deep democracy, and the impact of the application of those principles to conflict zones. Nick Turner Nickturnerwiki (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Deep Democracy Institute offers leadership programs around the world. The global reach of this program and related activities open up new and diverse networks and partnerships across sectors and disciplines. This page offers a valuable information source for the diverse entry points, locations and contexts of a growing community of leaders, conflict resolvers and entrepreneurs.

Julia Wolfson, Turning Forward, Australia Julia.wolfson (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 

   I checked the first three links on that list, and none of them were reliable, independent sources writing in detail about Deep Democracy Institute. Maybe someone could weed out the other links that aren't helpful? The ones you should leave are the ones that are published independently of the organization, and write in detail about its importance- newspaper articles, magazine articles, books by people who aren't in the institute, for example. Just a bunch of links to associate organizations doesn't do anything but make it difficult to find the useful sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the histories of notices and issues with this article, I wrote the current version with the intention of greater neutrality and description than the previous version. I also followed examples that I saw on other wiki articles. I understand that the wiki editor thinks that the previous version was actually better and I would be happy to change back or to incorporate the best of both but I don’t yet understand completely how to do that in the most neutral way. Hoping to receive thoughts from others and recommendations for improvements to this one or integrating the two.

Also, I see the discussion of the sources and want to add here some independent information about DDI. Some of it is through a DDI URL but opens an article or interview that is sourced elsewhere: I am adding it now to the discussion in hopes that the notice to delete will be removed and also I, and others, will be integrating these sources into the main article soon.

Interview with ShrinkRapRadio

Interview at Ukrainian Business School

Interview at Ukrainian Business School

Article in Journal of University of Stellenbosch Business School

University of Stellenbosch Business School

article on deep democracy discussing ddi

Deep Democracy, Conflict Resolution and Polarity

Deep Democracy Institute’s New Programs on Arny & Amy Mindell website

Evolutionary Leadership in Business

I know that there are other articles and interviews, which I will track down and add to this list and to the article’s references.

Nickturnerwiki (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Nick Turner

I have been a participant for several years in the original Deep Democracy Institute program in the West Bank, Palestine. and i'm doing my Master program in Conflict facilitation and deep democracy because of their effect on me from Palestine. I think this page adds a lot to that program and I know that many of us have read what is here and hope to see more. I know that there are some articles written about their work in Arabic and I will search for online sources and references to add to what is here. I hope that this article continues to grow, as the institute is doing, and feel that is deserves support. Mohammadargh (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

end of copying

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

non notable software. unsourced and very few google hits - nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete The fact that there are no third party sources indicates, that is a non-notable software. Armbrust Contribs 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Move, retitle, and Repurpose The software itself is clearly non-notable -- I could not even find anything in Google, using several variations . But the software is a product of Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative , which may well be notable--it has at least a 3rd party news ref. and some mentions--there may also be refs for some of its other projects. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Consider The software is somehow notable -- I am an employee of Dumanjug Multi-Purpose Cooperative, even though this software is not widely known all around the world, but here in the Philippines the cooperative sector has known well this software for providing a cost effective alternative to costly proprietary accounting softwares and really helps cooperatives in the operation. 22:38 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.22.249 (talk)
this may be, but we can not really have an article on it without some evidence that shows it. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Retain, we have added a link in the Wiki Article about a very recent implementation of Koopcas to a big cooperative in Northern Luzon Philippines, they are the first cooperative that publishes to the web regarding their implementation of KoopCAS, more cooperatives will follow soon. This can be referred to as making this software notable. Please do consider retaining this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.71.133 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment A link to a blog saying you sold a copy does not establish notability. See WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment We have added a new link directly to the official website of one of the big cooperatives in Cebu, FCCT has recently signed contract with CPMPC for KoopCAS, maybe this could be considered being notable. As I have said earlier that more cooperatives who have choosen to implement KoopCAS are slowly publishing it to the web. I hope this could be considered being notable. Please do consider keeping this article on this prestigious website Knowledge (XXG). Thanks and more power to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.71.133 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Again, a brief mention on a customer website does not qualify as a WP:reliable source for establishing notability. noq (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected to Secrets Can Kill, the video game that this is an element of. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Murder of Jacob Rogers (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 didn't speedy this because it doesn't fit neatly in any of the categories, but it seems like an obvious delete. This is an article about a particular plot element in a particular character's life in a barely notable Nancy Drew video game. Tried to prod, but creator removed the tag saying this article serves as some sort of "tribute". I'm not sure what that means. (ESkog) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. A made-up story (fan fiction) based on a video game. This article is written to present a video character as a real person, complete with an infobox and persondata. None of the refs support the content in the article. I think the idea of a "tribute" indicates that someone may be spending too much time playing video games. I would delete this as a hoax and original research. Cindamuse (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:N ? I think so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EO Products (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)

Obscure skin care product manufacturer; not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Engineers World (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 magazine, too new to be notable yet. No reliable third-party sources. Prod was removed by probable COI editor (same name as founding EIC of the magazine). Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G11. This article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article appears to fail the notability for organizations guidelines. There are 466 colleges affiliated with the Uttar Pradesh Technical University and there is little independent evidence of notability for this business college in the article or available on Google and none on Google News. This private college offers a PGDM (post-graduate diploma in management) but not an MBA. Currently the references provided are generic and do not establish a case against the general notability guidelines. There may be a better (certainly easier) case for an article about the SRMS group of colleges. Earlier PROD (and improvement templates) removed so raising for wider discussion.

Note, rather than a 'free-standing' college of education, this organization is a private business school in turn part of the private group of educational companies managed by Shri Ram Murti Smarak Trust. The PGDM course is affiliated with the University, presumably by having associate lecturers on loan. Consequently the most appropriate interpretation of notability can be found at Knowledge (XXG):OUTCOMES#Education in the bullet point called Departments or degree programs with Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges providing similar guidance that there is no assumption of automatic notability for such organizations. Fæ (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Witney and District League 2010-11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this local amateur league, the highest division of which sits at the notional 13th level of the English football league system, merits individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Al Angrisani (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)

30 days in the New Page Patrol queue because nobody knows what to do with it, so I'm offering it for a decision by the community. The article has an extremely promotional tone and is peppered with inline links to his own website. No inline sourced references. Notable or not, this is blatant advertising and would need a massive rewrite and many WP:RS to conform to policy. Article was posted by a single use account (WP:SPU). Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moment of inertia. –MuZemike 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel (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 pretty much amounts to a how-to article. The first two paragraphs are just introductions to moment of inertia and mechanics, which leaves the last paragraph about how to measure the equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel. Moreover, this topic is completely not notable. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Cote (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 notability guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO. Artist has released one album which has not charted. Can't source the Billboard quote Plad2 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete I've added one reference with some actual content in BillBoard, but I can't find enough reliable secondary coverage myself to establish notability under MUSICBIO or the GNG. Note that Billboard is largely covered by Google Books (as indicated by the reference I did just add), and that if the quote were accurate, I would expect it to be possible to find there, and I wasn't. --j⚛e decker 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious G10 Courcelles 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rubashkin crime family (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)

Courtesy blanking was proposed under CSD G10 John Nagle (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Speedy deletion was proposed, and is contested, so an AfD is appropriate under WP:DP to resolve the issue. See this version of the article for the content.)

The main issue here is the title of the article. The article content is a list of members of the R. family who have been convicted of crimes or are out on bail awaiting trial. This totals six people. All criminal activity is properly cited to reliable sources such as the New York Times, and is not in dispute. The question is whether putting those items in the same article constitutes "synthesis" under Knowledge (XXG) rules. There was some previous discussion of simply titling the article "Rubashkin family", but mixing the crooks and the non-crooks in the same article seemed to create WP:BLP issues. The use of the term "crime family" is the sticking point. An alternative title might fix the problem. This needs some neutral observers. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, John, the issue is not whether putting them all in the same article constitutes synthesis. The issue is that any article under this name is an obvious violation of CSD:G10. Which requires deletion of the article, not renaming. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a tough call. Five of them are convicted criminals, and there's no argument about that. The Forward, usually considered a reliable source, has editorialized on the family's record, pulling together the family's various criminal activities in a single article. They wrote "Agriprocessors is one of a network of businesses owned by the Rubashkin family, a large, tight-knit clan identified with the Lubavitch community in Brooklyn. The operations, like the family, may be considered a package." So there's a reliable source for pulling all this together. The phrase "crime family" may be a bit much. Can anyone suggest other language? {Simply using "family" was considered, but mixing up the crooks and the non-crooks in the family raised WP:BLP issues.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Rubashkin family, there does not seem to be independent notability beyond the criminal activity. As I mention below, an article about them as a "crime family" is inappropriate. An article about them as a "family" is non-notable. Joe407 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term crime family refers not to a blood family but to an organized crime syndicate. The Rubashkin family is not an organized syndicate but rather a bunch of criminals who are related. At most, this should be renamed just "Rubashkin family" but I tend towards delete because it violates BLP rules for the family at large (i.e. anyone with that last name who is not a criminal) and WP:SYNTH as pointed out by User:Brewcrewer. Joe407 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious speedy CSD:G10 clealy states "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." Nagle has been informed of this repeatedly at the article talk page, but is disrupting process by trying to make it an AFD issue. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename to Rubashkin family and change references in the article. Everything besides the fact it is a crime family is referenced. NativeForeigner /Contribs 06:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article is very well sourced, most of the individuals already have their own articles and/or are featured prominently in articles such as Agriprocessors, and they have been treated collectively in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article is entirely original research. The product/company isn't all that notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is noted that there is also no prejudice to merging, and that can always be done post-AFD, with additional discussion and consensus-building if necessary. –MuZemike 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bucky Phillips manhunt controversy (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 BLP article that, by its very nature, can never be neutral point-of-view D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources, and thus notable. No explanation of the purported non-neutrality is provided. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per nominator, see note below. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ralph "Bucky" Phillips (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)

BLP, an article that is inherently NPOV by its very nature. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted as nonsense/vandalism by PMDrive1061 (talk) --Lenticel 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable..is there an SD tag that will work, since WP:A7 doesn't qualify. Only an elementary/middle school http://www.orchard.org/ CTJF83 chat 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tetrafusion (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:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also a WP:COI user has been creating/editing further articles regarding the band's albums . WookieInHeat (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not yet notable - insufficient independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy Delete fails WP:MUSIC, blatant WP:COI, and the record label they're "signed" to doesn't even exist. 2 says you, says two 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not outright fail WP:MUSIC, to my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009), Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) , and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009) and interviewed on a few radio stations . As for the WP:COI, I was under the impression that if it exists, it simply meant that an editor must exercise extreme caution when editing articles, and be especially careful to maintain a neutral POV, and the article seems to show that that was done, and if it wasn't, the article should be edited, not deleted. Lastly, I believe the record label does exist. . GrizCakes (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Most, if not all, of your sources appear to not be reliable, which is one of the main criteria for WP:GNG....plus a lot are not even in English, for me to verify CTJF83 chat 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I was aiming for more sources are better than less, 5,7,8,10,13,17, the Magazines, and the Radio interview are the ones to focus on, as for the sources not in English, doesn't the fact that the article is covered internationally strengthen the case for notability? GrizCakes (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • If the coverage is non-trivial...I can't check to see how trivial the coverage is on non-English sites. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • They all appear to be album reviews, which appears to go against WP:BAND #1 exceptions CTJF83 chat 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
          • 17 and the radio interview appear to focus on the band, I believe there was also a News Network interview (ABC 33/40), and some other radio interviews, but I'm having difficulty finding verifiable proof. GrizCakes (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
            • That's why I brought it here....lack of verifiable sources. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
            • It's difficult for a band of their size and time of being active to have entirely reliable sources. Album reviews, magazine articles, and radio interviews are all they have, which are completely independent sources that state information about the band as a third party. The band is definitely above water in the industry, with albums for sale at Best Buy, albums charting on Bestsellers charts, etc. WP:COI doesn't really apply as the articles are created to benefit Knowledge (XXG) in the sense that when media focuses on the band, they can have an entirely, objective source to draw information from, rather than relying on bias and subjectivity from other opinionated columns/interviews. This page has been active for quite awhile and only seems to be edited with strict, appropriate updates and appears from the editing logs to be used entirely for logistical reasons.AllMusicReview (chat 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NSONG only very few very trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ōmuta (disambiguation) (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 topic does not need a disambiguation page armagebedar (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories (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 believe this is listcruft. It violates WP:SYN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and most importantly WP:V, since it is not at all clear how the information is to be verified, partly because it is nowhere clear what information is being presented. We learn that Puerto Rico is a "servient territory" of the "dominant sovereign state" that is the America, but this doesn't help us learn what relationship actually obtains between these two entities, especially since entirely different relationships exist between the USA and the other entities listed under it as "servient" (how often is that word used in the literature anyway?). This list does not tell anybody anything, as its opening tacitly admits. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge to Dependent territory in a historical section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • How is this supposed to be merged? It is unsourced and the relationships between states unspecified. I think a merge is impossible. We don't need a list of this sort, so the list should be deleted. The list contains no information that we otherwise lack. Srnec (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: as the nom suggests, such a list actually inadvertently creates misinformation and encourages incorrect conclusions. Relationships between these entities can be properly explained in individual country articles, etc. And, simply because other dubious lists may exist is no justification for this one. And merging would simply cut'n'paste the problem to another place. --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, incurable. Large empires were complex, evolving, at time amorphous affairs; their corresponding articles are wikipedia battlefields. Controversial content should not be reproduced elsewhere while there's disagreement about core subjects. I don't want to judge this list as acceptable or unacceptable per Knowledge (XXG):Content forking; but it is clearly undesirable. East of Borschov 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of work went into this, but it just isn't work we can use in this form. "Servient territory" is an actual term of art in international law; adding to this list's problems, it is not remotely close to being strictly applicable to many of these entries. Instead, the stated inclusion criteria are so broad as to be impossible to verify, and, indeed, no effort is made to do so. Everything from uninhabited coral atolls to wartime occupations to some (but not all!) Indian states (and, curiously, none of the Indian union territories) is currently included. I can see no way to salvage this. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bridgeburne R (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)

Some second-rate band's third-rate prank is not notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mister Jalopy (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 contains no useful information and is about a complete non-entity. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the rough consensus indicates. Note that, in order to preserve attribution, if any editor wishes to move forward with splitting, the edit history will need to be undeleted. –MuZemike 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbian war crimes (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 main problem with the article is that it weaves together disparate incidents that are only marginally related to one another into one giant SYNTH so as to demonize a particular ethnic group. It treats events that occurred at different times and places, over a period of 100 years or so, as if they were part of a single unified plan, which is not how these events are treated in the literature. The way it is phrased and written, it also places blame on a particular ethnic group, when blame for such acts is usually directed at specific organizations or governments. The various parts of the article should be merged into the appropriate articles and "Serbian War Crimes" itself should be a category, as is the case with Category:Croatian War Crimes.
Athenean (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that article should be deleted too, as it is just a list of crimes, with almost no other text. It can be replaced by a category. Vanjagenije 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Verne Carlson (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'm not seeing any serious claim of notability for this "cinematography film teacher and author". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G11, advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Test Drive College Online (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:CORP. looks like an advert. hardly any coverage . LibStar (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Carol Zara (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 BLP, even among Internet "celebrities". Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources do not meet WP:RS and consist mainly of social networking sites and non-notable fan type websites. Could you please expand on exactly which of her "notable achievements" meet the criteria as outlined at WP:ENT? Jezebel'sPonyo 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable achievements? She works for MTV Brazil and was featured on G4_TV, those two are sufficient enough. Also what do you consider a major site? These sources listed on the page aren't exactly sites that go unnoticed, these are major sites. If you want to argue that the sites aren't good enough sources, then there are thousands of other wiki pages that should be up for deletion too.(98.223.177.254 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

I did not use the words 'major site' as they do not have any relevance to my argument; what I referred to are reliable sites which have everything to do with notability and WP:BLP articles in general. Whatever appears in other Knowledge (XXG) articles is also irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: The issue with "her" is not so much that she is not a celebrity, becuase celebrity is controversial. The problem that keeps this from being kept is that not even a single three of the article's references have any tangible investigatory jumping-off point. Get three reliable sources, and the article might be of snowball keep standard. M'kay?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't MTV, G4, and Virgin Gaming reliable enough? That's three. (Rhymestyle (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

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

The result was delete per a rough consensus for deletion as well as the arguments for deletion outweighing the sole argument for retention, which was also refuted. –MuZemike 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aetiology (blog) (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 blog seems to fail WP:WEB. I do not think that the coverage it has received meets any of the three prongs of WEB as it was trivial or appeared in other blogs. Perhaps most notable among its coverage was that Nature rated it #7 of science blogs written by scientists for the general public based on Technorati hits. But Nature only actually profiled the top five (and only put the full list online). At that time, the blog was listed as number 4,989 by Technocrati. It also received a profile on a med student blogsite hosted by WebMD, but this does not seem to be the sort of source, especially alone, that would meet WP:WEB. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete taking Novaseminary at face value. "Was mentioned in " is a basic admission of not asserting notability. JJB 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep that Nature listed it 7th in its list of most used popular science blogs is notability. It's hard to think of a better source. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment But the magazine didn't list it in print or in the article. The full list only appeared in an online appendix (here) to the article. It was seventh on the list based on criteria the Nature author devised using Technorati stats. The Nature article profiled the top five, not this blog. Per the actual article: "Out of 46.7 million blogs indexed by the Technorati blog search engine, five scientists' sites make it into the top 3,500. Declan Butler asks the winners about the reasons for their success." This blog was not a "winner". The Nature article's author only thought the first five were notable enough to revceive profiles or even mentions in the article. On what basis would you disagree? What about numbers 6 and 8, or number 17? Appearance alone on this list cannot be enough, can it? Novaseminary (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Acey Aquino (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 find nothing in the MSM about this person, nor in books, nor anywere in fact. This person is just not notable mark (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Patafunk (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: BAND, refs mainly consists of non independent, not reliable sources. Also see the EL, its mainly stuff written by the group itself. Unioneagle (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – It was me who declined the speedy deletion after reading what was presented on the talk page. There is coverage in Spinner.com, a chart hit in Venezuela (see link on the talk page), and I also found a brief mention in Billboard (vol. 122, iss. 9, p. 12). Paul Erik 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – To help with building a consensus, I'll throw my hat in with Paul Erik above. The sources are fairly slight and the band has not been noticed too much outside of their native land, but WP is meant to be an international resource. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stagflation. –MuZemike 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Slowflation (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)

Neologism. No evidence of notability, no external sources provided. LK (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Stagflation. The difference between "Stagflation" and "Slowflation" is subtle, basically the same principle, and the terms should be considered as part of a single article, listed under the far more recognizable name. "Slowflation" is a neologism without much of a following, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, redirect per Carrite. This is an unfamiliar but definitely extant neologism—just the sort of thing that an encyclopaedia user might wish to look up. We ought to have something more helpful than a redlink, but I also agree that a separate article is not justified.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Swamp Percussion (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 lacks reliable sources verifying the notability of this organization, and I wasn't able to find appropriate sources to add with my own search. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "All information has been check for accuracy by the owner of the companies, Eric Sooy," but without the addition of sources or information about the company's notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Although not the original author of the article, I represent the company and have expanded and added factual references.

Teliosis (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete – At this time. One of the core requirements for an article here at Knowledge (XXG) is that the subject must meet notability standards as stated; “…A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. “ I was only able to find a few articles, (5) in a Google News search, which mentioned the company and a majority of those were in trade journals. I saw no references to major contributions by the company that influenced the industry – individuals or other organizations. Sorry to say, at this point, the company is non-notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
  • Comment When you cite a search, please provide a link to the search, rather than to the Knowledge (XXG) article about Google News. This lets others see what you found, and make sure your search terms were well chosen. Edison (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The Toledo Blade and Drum magazines have significant coverage. One link to a promising article listed as a ref is broken, but a working convenience link is not a requirement for notability. In addition I found an article via Newsbank at the library "Black Swamp Percussion snares share of instrument market - The musical masterpieces are handmade, one at a time, in the company headquarters, which is about to move into a larger building" by Myron Kukla. The Grand Rapids Press, Sept 5, 2004, which is a 526 word newspaper article about the company. Edison (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Not a notable artist in her own right. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources. I didn't even know the subject until I saw this AFD. However, this is a weak, WP:Not notable deletion nomination that didn't do the 3 seconds of research required to instantly disprove the claim. Under, "Find Sources," above, one need only make that hard effort of clicking on 'News,' and maybe if you're feeling extra helpful, 'Books,' to see that this nomination should never have been made. Please don't clutter AFD with these in the future. Vodello (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Hardly any of the results generated by looking at the 'News' or 'Books' links refer to the person that this article is about. Of those that do, most only mention her in passing. The refs provided by Michig are good ones, though. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non notable concert tour. fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. References serve to only advertise tour dates and do not qualify as "significant coverage in multiple independent sources" Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Prod removed by IP with WP:OSE as an argument. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability per WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Try Subterranean Press's website, which is mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.234 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bijapur Airport (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 proper info about the airport Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑