Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 29 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep

  1. The notability of the topic is painfully obvious.
  2. Though perhaps not entirely free of original research, some content in the article is supported by WP:RS.
  3. The article appears to be a reasonable attempt to neutrally treat the subject (it would be possible to start an article on a notable topic as an extremely biased advocacy essay; such material could possibly be deleted, rather than leaving the essay up until someone replaced it with an acceptable article.)
  4. The nomination for deletion is not supported by any policy or guideline.
  5. The nomination itself is defective (it was never listed at AfD.) Had the nomination actually been added to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 29, the consensus for keeping the article would be overwhelming.
  6. Because of the above, there's no reason to leave an ugly gray box on the article for an entire week, so
  7. I am improving the encyclopedia by closing this now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not give a correct and true overall definition of sexual fetishism as it exists in today's world. A reboot (deletion and re-creation) is proposed if appropriate edits are not undertaken by Sexual Science Professionals within a reasonable timeframe. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. At 4300 words, it's not a small article, although anything of a sexual nature is likely to offed some people. I'm not sure what is "correct and true" as anything that true for one couple may well not be for another. It makes a few questionable observations, e.g, "The sexual acts involving fetishes are characteristically depersonalized and objectified, even when they involve a partner," which sounds like 1970s feminist comment. (Now that I check the reference for that comment, the ref doesn't say that at all!) Overall, worth keeping.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. No clear reason for a reboot has been made. What the article lacks in a "true overall definition of sexual fetishism as it exists in today's world" can be added if it is encyclopedic and sourced without completely removing the content that is already there. If the emphasis or ordering of the article is biased or in someway a problem that to can be addressed by edits rather than this proposed reboot. The fact that an editor doesn't find the article as it is to his personal liking is not an adequate reason to do a complete "reboot". Tjc (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied I was working with the author because they asked for feedback. I was addressing the issues with the author. AFD was a little premature. Alpha Quadrant 23:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispersion of Guilt (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)

Unremarkable band. Fails notability requirements. References I suppose could be to magazines but I cannot verify this. OSborncontributionatoration 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Article is probably promotional in nature. See creator: Dispersionofguilt (talk · contribs) OSborncontributionatoration 23:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jinenkan (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 Japanese martial arts organisation. Amazingly, this article has survived for eight years without anybody adding any independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn". take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Life imprisonment in Mexico (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 subject does not need its own article because it is very short and does not appear to be expandable. MorganKevinJ 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- no assertion of notability presented and none expected for a game made-up in Fall 2010. — CactusWriter 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aedes (card 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)

Some recently made up card game by a group of students at a university. No coverage anywhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Girls (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 English references available to validate notability for English Knowledge (XXG). jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not meet notability requirements (See Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films)) TB (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Verifiability was a concern here, but it appears from the discovery of new sources that the fact of the subject being a prominent actor is at least verifiable even if his awards were not. After those sources were presented, there were no additional arguments to delete, so the consensus is to keep. Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lauro Delgado (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 have found no reliable sources to verify this BLP article. Mattg82 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I'd agree that those awards would make a person notable but I'm not clear on where you're sourcing those wins from. If you can just pardon my obtuseness and give me a link I'll switch my vote above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly WP:V requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source". I'd find it hard to read an AfD nomination as anything other than a challenge to any and all claims of notability. On a process level, there needs to be a source for the FAMAS awards before they can be evidence of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly we're now deleting articles on w/c references are absolutely impossible to find. On these circumstances, I'm willing to accept IMDB sources unless there are evidences to the contrary. I've found an unofficial website (the FAMAS doesn't have an official website, LOL go ahead and delete the main FAMAS article) but they didn't list the nominees. The winners are almost the same to the IMDB list although it's off by one year (probably because the FAMAS Awards for say 2000 are awarded for performances on films screened on 1999). I don't think there'd be sources that'll pass WP:RS at least for non-Filipinos who don't know these things. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite searching the unofficial FAMAS site (which is a particularly dodgy looking site) I can't find any evidence of who maintains it or who is responsible for its accuracy or otherwise, and IMDB specifically denies its own accuracy, so they're just not acceptable sources. Sources are reliable for their purpose or not - you can't declare them to be reliable simply because that's all you've got. Yes, I note the FAMAS award article is entirely unsourced but (a) I'm not in the habit of starting AfDs just to make a point, and (b) it seems likely that reliable sources about the FAMAS awards could be found substantiating their notability, even if they didn't specify full lists of nominees and winners. Invoking the provisions against systemic bias isn't relevant here because you're not invoking them to justify Delgado's notability but rather to suggest that sources probably exist backing the claim that he's won these awards. There's no reason to have that presumption, because there's no reason to presume he won the awards. I'm sympathetic here, but come on, you really can't provide ANY reliable source? (I've run into this problem before in trying to justify notability of roleplaying games - the field just doesn't produce reliable sources, almost all the journalism is blogs - and I was as frustrated then as you probably are now.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not that reliable sources did not or never existed like come on, it's really hard to find English sources for contemporary RPGs -- they're barely notable at all; it's harder to find reliable sources on Philippine entertainment news from the 1960s, even if they are notable if Knowledge (XXG) existed in the 60s. It's just impossible to look for them 50 years after the event happened. Most current Manila newspapers were created in the late 1980s: all archives in the internet only run up to 2000 at the earliest. For example, this has news reports that the 1968 FAMAS Awards really happened, and the President of the Philippines was the guest of honor. However the scans of the newspaper articles did not mention the nominees. But it shows that it really happened and the unreliable sources turn out to be right after all. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're putting the cart before the horse. You're saying, 'Clearly this would be notable, if only there were reliable sources.' But Knowledge (XXG) says, 'If there are not reliable sources, it's not notable.' It's not an arbitrary rule or a technicality. The reason we require the sources, even for things we know intuitively must be notable, is because there is no value in content that we cannot verify. It's simply not useful to anyone, because it's impossible to trust its accuracy. It may have been put there by a well-meaning expert in the field, or it may be a hoax by a troll. The requirement for notability at AfD says, 'We'd love to have an article on this, but without sources it's simply impossible to put any verifiable content in the article. If there's no content, there's no article, and hence we're deleting it until such a time as you find sources.' If you can't find sources, then you have a bigger problem than notability because you're unable to write a verifiable article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The two "unreliable" sources correspond to The Manila Times news article written 40 years ago -- the three sources are identical on stating who were the winners. Now it's virtually impossible to find reliable sources on something that happened 40 years ago. Ergo, we're pretty sure that at least the unofficial website wasn't started by a "troll" (LOL). We've verified that the 1968 FAMAS Awards occurred, the three sources were identical on who won, hence we essentially verified the two "unreliable" sources as verifiable ones; hence we trust the now verified "unreliable" sources to be trustworthy when it comes to the nominees.
  • As what I've said, this is not an article about role-playing games which reliable sources were certainly not published, this is an article about a person who was nominated for a national acting award 40 years ago in which reliable sources were certainly published but are currently impossible to find. If the internet was invented in the 60s this would've been an easy keep. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The Manilla Times seems like it would be a reliable source - are you able to cite it? Doesn't have to be an online link, just a date, page number, and quote. As for the others, using one unreliable source to corroborate another unreliable source is (a) dodgy, and more importantly, (b) original research, which is something else that Knowledge (XXG) frowns upon. Get someone else to say that the two sources agree, and have them publish that opinion in a newspaper, book, or academic article, and then you can quote it. You can't say "if the internet was invented in the 60s this would be an easy keep", because in saying that either you're referring to a reliable source as to the way things were in the 1960s, or you're not (and thereby asking us to treat your personal opinion, however well informed, as a reliable source). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep His lengthy career seems verifiable, and post-WW2 pre-internet notability to the Phillipines is notable enough for en.Knowledge (XXG). Now if someone could only fly there within the next couple days, learn tagalog, and then look in old archives for hardcopy sources to support the few books online, it would be terrific. Schmidt, 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:V. IMDB is acceptable for basic facts unless there is some reason to doubt it (there have been such cases, but articles there on major figures are generally checked) DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus, supported by at least some sourcing, is that the practice of naming streets out of people in New York is notable, thus justifying this list. Mkativerata (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

List of eponymous streets in New York City (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)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a case study. This list examines a relationship between a method of naming streets in a specific city without showing why streets named this way in this specific city (NYC) are notable. This is actually one of the most common methods of street naming anywhere in the world. Sebwite (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Embox (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 yet notable, find some Google hits but nothing reliable so far. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

*Keep This is rather interesting project. What about mentioned rules - in length of time an amount of information will increase and the page will be full of content. SunnyA (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — SunnyA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep The article is being translated from Russian. Give us some time. Abusalimov (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC) *Keep This is a promising real time operating system! Sena1or (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — Sena1or (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Not yet notable, find some Google hits but nothing reliable so far. Does not reliable source as proof of existence? As said above, OS is under active development now, so it's not in Google Top yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikmir (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. As you say, it's currently under development. You're also saying that it's not in Google Top yet. In order for a Knowledge (XXG) article topic to meet notability requirements, it must already be notable now- not have the potential to be notable in the future when it is finished. --Slon02 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to Sikmir: Yes it is reliable proof of existence, but that's irrelevant since existence, relevance, or promise (or similarity to other OS articles, for that matter) isn't the standard for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). See my following comments for explanation. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*Keep I think this is a promising project. Embedded Systems are quite relevant. LediMM 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) — LediMM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: Please note that whether a project is promising or interesting or is real does not make any difference. The standard for retention at Knowledge (XXG) — English WP, at least, the rules may be different at Russian WP — is "notability" as defined in the verifiability policy and refined in the notability guidelines. The issue isn't whether proof of existence can be given, but whether reliable proof of "notability" exists. (I put notability in quotation marks because "notability", as that term is used at Knowledge (XXG), is both procedurally and conceptually different from dictionary-definition notability.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once again, Sena1or and LediMM have no edits except in this discussion. Both seem to like the word "promising". — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Sikmir, a bunch of these accounts are sockpuppets, and I've struck their comments as such. — HelloAnnyong 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but I think, TransporterMan and others are wrong about user Sikmir and this discussion in general. First of all I suggest you visit site ohloh.net and look for project embox. This site is rather popular in open source community. If you look through contributers of this project you can find that sikmir Sunny and others users who you seem the same person, have different account for a long time. My name is Anton Bondarev (abondarev) for wikipedia, I have several commits too. The reason why we make the same mistakes is we use "russian english". I'm sorry again. It seems embox doesn't have references in english google, but it has several references in russian google, including links to science's and student's works. And may be this page does not have significant coverage for all people, but for this project's developers it does. I think Sikmir just wanted to tell about this project (his work) to people from other universities. Sorry for my poor english. Abondarev (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clearly the policy is that standalone articles must be independantly notable and the clear consensus is that there are no independant reliable sources here Spartaz 20:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Nod (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 looked around and the only sources I could find for this are self-published sources from Electronic Arts, West Wood Studios, or business partners. Nothing with the independence required to WP:verify notability. I realize it's a lengthy article and someone put in a lot of effort to source it to the game, to developer diaries, to instruction manuals... but that's not how notability works. You need reliable secondary sources that are independent of the maker. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cycbot.b (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 claim to notability whatsoever, or evidence that it has been covered by third-party sources in anything more than an automated and routine format. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient indication of notability. Jayjg 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Related Articles:
Apriva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AprivaPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AprivaMail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apriva Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AFDs: Apriva Products, Apriva

Apriva (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 importance, no reliable third-party sources to explain why this company is significant. Only source is a newspaper article from 2000, which is essentially a press release; it is NOT a reliable independent source. Google searches and news searches show no reliable coverage. It's clear that the company exists, but it's not clear that they are at all important. WP:MILL, if that; and only one editor to this page. — Timneu22 · talk 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment; to be clear, it's not 'essentially' a press release, it's really a press release from the company distributed over business wire. Will look for other sources. Kuru (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There's hundreds of trivial mentions in articles and magazines; most of those are press releases. This was about all I could ferret out that looked independent and went beyond trivial coverage. Note that there are also product offerings list at AprivaPay, ], and Apriva Reader that may offer some other context. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have started a related AfD process for the pages AprivaPay, AprivaMail, and Apriva Reader, which are apparently all products from this business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment In an attempt to add more relevance to the entry, I found several more references to the company that help point out why Apriva is important and should be included in in Knowledge (XXG). They began working with the NSA in 2002. Later, as previously pointed out, Apriva entered into a contract with the DoD to provide wireless security support for the President, Vice President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. That, in and of itself, makes this company extremely important and worth the addition. On top of that, the company is apart of several associations and organizations that are responsible for setting security standards. Regardless of your opinion on my writing, there is clearly significance with a company that provides the upper echelon of one of the World's super powers with wireless security. I added in more independent and reliable sources to help provide more relevance and significance. Apologies for the gibberish, but I made an attempt to clarify. Bfeddern (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
After having looked through the new references here are my two cents: The sources seem to consist almost entirely of press releases or articles written directly from press releases. Homeland Security Insight & Analysis might not be a business publication, but the article clearly states "Source: Apriva". The Pure Mobile seems to be an exception, but it is basically a blog post. What is needed is a couple of articles in properly published independent publications that don't just rehash material from press releases. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP I am not a spammer, and I am not affiliated with the company Apriva (do not work there, do not get paid by the company, do not communicate with the company). I am a noob at creating Wiki editions, and thus did not add in enough information on this entry to do it justice. My objective is to find areas that haven't been tapped, and add in information. I stick to business-related entries and football-related entries (view my history). Apriva has a definite significance, since they provide the secure communications for the Department of Defense. In the age of Wiki Leaks, it's amazing people are quick to flag as spam a wireless security company with US government contracts. It is also amazing that my writing was called out as gibberish, as I didn't realize that someone had to have a certain standard of writing. Based on several articles I have read on this site over the years, this is clearly not a standard that is being applied to everyone. As for the product pages, I will have to dig into those individually. Adobe has ALL of their products listed on Knowledge (XXG), which is the model I tried to follow for those. First, I would like to ensure that all of my hard work on this addition isn't deleted. It would be a shame to delete the information. My efforts to ensure this article sticks will become daily so that an objective process is used in judging the content of this article (and other articles on this site, for that matter). Bfeddern (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment In an effort to prove the important and relevance in this article, several valid citations were added from the following: Vending Times, Information Week, Dallas Business Journal, Homeland Security Insight & Analysis, and The Green Sheet. These are non-press releases and from reputable information sources. Bfeddern (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I only get one vote, but made several edits to the page to help try and counteract the fact that this page is trying to be deleted. As I make edits to improve the page, I will add another line here even if it only counts as one vote. What do I need to do, beyond what I have done, to ensure that this page sticks and is not deleted? There are several other pages of companies in this industry that aren't ever put together as well as this page (USA_Technologies_Inc.). Still learning the process. Bfeddern (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom. IMHO, exposure in business magazines doesn't make a company necessarily notable. EVERY company gets a write-up in one of those magazine. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. So a company that provides wireless security support to the executive branch of the United States, as well as the Department of Defense, is not a notable company? Homeland Security Insight & Analysis is not a business publication. Can you please provide an example of what would make a company notable enough to be included into Knowledge (XXG), so that some sort of benchmark can be set? Bfeddern (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Raja Liaqat Ali (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 Pakistani journalist. Fails WP:BIO as there is no evidence he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, despite puffery like, "In a short period he made everybody admit to his capabilities." An apparent autobio or COI article from users Raja.cj (talk · contribs) and Cj.Raja (talk · contribs). Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If somebody has not biography on Internet its not his mistake.Secondly Raja Liaqat Ali has been threatened by some people because of his profession.An example is there in this article as a column of Ayaz Amir.If this sentence doesn't suits here "In a short period he made everybody admit to his capabilities." then I can delete this sentence but overall deleting article will be unjust with author.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.cj (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 speedy delete. G7  Ronhjones  23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Charleston Tribune (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:Note. Also, questionable refs: One is a news feed that links back to the "newspaper's" website. The other, Nieman Journalism Lab, appears to be a blog, but regardless, does not mention the "Charleston Tribune at all...rather, it is about AnnArbor.com. It appears that the local/regional paper has gone under, at least print-wise, and they are moving to an online format and limited publication, which apparently the Charleston Tribune is part of this re-format. It's rather hard to tell. Either way, the Charleston Tribune hasn't even run in print form yet, and isn't expected to until 2011. Needless to say, Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion, but it seems like there might be something to this, however convoluted it might be in its current form, so we'll see what others think. The Eskimo (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Update After I brought some of the guidelines regarding notability and sources to their talk page, the creator of the article has given the go-ahead to delete the article in its current form, stating that he/she/they may have "jumped the gun" when creating the article in its current form. See the talk page here. Can someone please close this? I am not an admin, and am not familiar with proper procedures in these instances. The Eskimo (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrés Eduardo Menéndez (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)

Do not believe that the subject passes WP:NFOOTY in that the team that he is reported to have played for, Alacranes Del Norte, plays in Segunda División de Fútbol Salvadoreño, a second level team. However, even if the team is fully professional, I can find no coverage of the subject in and reliable sources, so he does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO and cannot be kept. —J04n(talk page) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust Contribs 19:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

It is just a repository of results. And how could we speak from a rivalry if all matches they played was won by Henin? Armbrust Contribs 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The net and Multiple Realities (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 a huge number of problems. First, it seems to be written about some essay that has no third-party sources. Therefore, there is not indication that the topic is important. Second, the only "reference" is the topic itself; third, it seems to be pushing a point: the point that the essay itself is making. There is simply nothing encyclopedic here, and this should fall under some CSD (like essays) that doesn't yet exist. — Timneu22 · talk 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article appears to be an essay, or about an essay, and in either case there is no evidence of notability. Article has insufficient context to allow other editors to meaningfully expand the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I had a look for references which discuss this essay, without much luck, as it seems to have very little traction on the web at present. I think there is the problem of notability; neither the essay writer nor apparently her 9 published works currently have articles . The article, if kept, would require vast improvement: the "content" section seems to make very little sense. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete – The subject of this article is apparently a specific article of the same name by Jodi Dean which appears in The Cultural Studies Reader. Simon During (ed.). London: Routledge, 2007. Her article is not notable in itself in terms of citations , , or even reviews. Dean herself might be notable enough as an academic for a WP article (, ) but this chapter in an introductory level reader is definitely not. I'm wondering if this is part of a school or college project. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think if anyone was wedded to the idea of keeping, that this could be turned into an article about the professor rather than the essay, which does seem to be....shall we say 'fringe'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note This article has aleady been deleted once (yesterday) for copyright infringement . Frankly the introduction is still closely paraphrased from that conferance speaker's blurb and the rest is basically quotes from the article itself and two other unpublished manuscripts by lord knows who (both were downloaded from blogs). Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously, for several reasons. The article was tagged for speedy deletion on several grounds, including G11 (unambiguous promotion). HJ Mitchell removed teh speedy deeltion tag, saying (among other things) that it "doesn't seem to be advertising anything". I find this odd: it is clearly promoting Jodi Dean's views, and arguably her essay. Certainly delete, and I should have said speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment The article should definitely be deleted, but it's certainly not promoting her views, because the article's creator (for whom English is pretty clearly their second language) has not understood them at all and simply put together some garbled quotes. Also the article is not "recent" as stated in the WP article. It came out over three years ago in the 3rd edition of an introductory reader. It is of extremely marginal importantance in terms of her own academic output and would not even be worth covering in an article about her. Dean has written multiple articles in peer reviewed journals and several full-length books, one of which, Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace (Cornell University Press) was reviewed not only in academic journals but also in the New York Times , the New York Review of Books and most major US papers. She has just published her latest book, Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. If the intention was to "promote" her work, this article definitely doesn't do that. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

It is just a repository of results and only has one primary source. Armbrust Contribs 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Top Dogg (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 about a rapper that does not have reliable sources to establish notability. Based on the article content, the subject never managed to release and album, nor had a hit single. Allmusic lists only two songs by him, and no albums. A search for reliable sources is confounded somewhat by Snoop Dogg's album No Limit Top Dogg, but filtering through the results, I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming: An exploration of the inner self (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 is already a page on lucid dreaming. This article nominated for deletion has not been structured. Perhaps the original user could revise and merge with lucid dream. JakeClouD (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam Musto (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)

Unclear claim to notability. The references are either self published sources or don't even mention the subject CutOffTies (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Narrow House (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 publishing company. Speedied it but it was declined on the basis of inherited notability (they're notable because they publish people who do have articles).

There were two articles, one at Narrow House and one at Narrow house. I tagged both for speedy, the House article was deleted forthwith (by some other admin) and the house article was moved to House by the admin who declined to delete it. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

National conservatism (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 appear to be no sources indicating that there is a generally recognized subject. Sources show the term has been used to describe the policies of Daniel Webster and sometimes to describe right-wing populism. It is also used to describe conservative parties that compete on a national level. TFD (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that statement, please. TFD (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Use Google. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The link you provided is to a copy of the Knowledge (XXG) article on a mirror site. Can you please provide a book or article that says there are 30+ such parties. TFD (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I take back my statement that there are 30+ parties, but there is a fair share of parties that follow this ideology. It clearly fills the requirements for inclusion. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source for that statement. You may be correct, but we cannot have articles about subjects that do not appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There is even a book written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNicho231 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I mentioned that a writer had used the term to describe the policies of Daniel Webster. But what has that got to do with the use of the term to describe the subject discussed in the article? TFD (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you find anything written about it other than a dictionary? Incidentally, the first page of the dictionary makes it seem questionable: "The New World Order and the global public Administration with a global bureaucracy will have major implications for public administration theory, education and practice." The definition appears to be a synonym for Right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Your first source uses it as a synonym for right-wing populism while the first hit in your Google search was for Daniel Webster. In fact all three parties are normally described as right-wing populist. Can you explain why you think that the two concepts are connected. TFD (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
To claim that 'national conservatism' equals 'right-wing populism' is nonsense or pure WP:OR. The two terms are related, but not synonymous. Firstly, 'populism' is not the way these parties usually self-describe, rather, some see it as a slightly derogatory label attached by critics. The Latvian LNNK or the minor Estonian National Movement for example define itself as a national-conservative organizations. There are numerous others. Secondly, 'right-wing populism' also includes trends that are better described as 'national liberalism' or e.g. 'new right'. None of these really equal national conservatism. Thirdly, Deutsche Partei was described as nationalist/conservative/national-conservative during its heyday, the label 'right-wing populism' was not even used these days. All in all, the fact that you refuse to recognize the brand called national conservatism does not make this phenomenon nonexistent. MIaceK (woof!) 14:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Term is in sufficient usage, and WP does not require titles to conform with what any given editor knows. see also Variations among conservative parties arise mainly from the tension between neoliberal and national conservatism. Second, the influence of both secularism and national conservatism has eroded some of Christian democracy's traditional pro-European fervor. Their anti-communism, national conservatism, and distrust of “moral relativism” find ample support among the electorate. And so on. Collect (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
They appear to be using it as a synonym for right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Asserting what you WP:KNOW does not work when the specific quotes make no such claims. Collect (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Your second source for example classifies the PiS as a "national conservative" party. The classification to which that party belongs is right-wing populism, although as that article points out, there are numerous other synonyms used for this category of political parties. It appears the writer is using this term as a synonym. If they are not, could you please find a source that explains the term. TFD (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? You mean you know better than the author of the article what he meant? Interesting idea, that. As for your use of claims that your term is better because the person using a different term really meant it only as a synonym - therein lies hubris. Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As it says in Right-wing populism, "Scholars use terminology inconsistently, sometimes referring to right-wing populism as "radical right" or other terms. Pippa Norris noted that they have been called "'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on"." That does not mean that we should have dozens of articles about the subject. I do not know whether the authors were using the term as a synonym. You could help however by finding a source that explains how the term is used and what parties it describes. You might also find a source that connects Daniel Webster with modern radical right-wing parties. TFD (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to use a Knowledge (XXG) article as a reference? LOL. et seq were by one editor. A sequence of fifteen edits by that same editor, in fact. Did that fact elide your notice? Collect (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote provided is sourced to Pippa Norris's book, Radical Right. The issue is however whether or not that article is about the same subject as this one. Can you please provide a source that describes "national conservatism" so we can make that determination. TFD (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A source already has been supplied above that describes "national conservatism". One point of difference is that Laissez-faire liberalism is a defining feature of right wing populism but not of National conservatism. In any case, making such a determination is synthesis, you should find a published source (apart from referring to your own work on Knowledge (XXG)) that asserts national conservatism = right wing populism, rather than asserting that you WP:KNOW it to be. --Martin (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The only source that describes the term is the dictionary for administrators with the "global bureaucracy" of the "New World Order", and it provides no examples or sources. All the parties listed in the article are right-wing populist parties, which is why I thought they might be the same. Can you point to any other source that identifies it? BTW, your source does not seem to cover Daniel Webster. However the book The radical right in Switzerland says that Swiss scholars use the term "national-conservative" to describe the Swiss People's Party, although they do not define it, because they reject the use of comparative research on the radical right. TFD (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So you WP:KNOW all these parties listed in the article are right-wing populist parties, or do you have a source? So Damir Skenderovic claims Swiss scholars "reject the use of comparative research on the radical right" when they describe Swiss People's Party as "national-conservative", so what? --Martin (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Not to be merged with anything. Maybe all the parties listed are not similar enough to be on a list together, but this ideology is PART of those parties, even though they have other ideologies that inspire their policies. Dismissing the whole thing as entryism or camouflage is silly. Leftwingers just think conservatives are evil. That's never going to change. --LeedsKing (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Video Game Critic (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:WEB. No sources where content is the subject. Diocles777 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Texas Straw Poll (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-binding straw poll in one state sponsored by a website and attended by minor 2008 U.S. presidential candidates - no significant coverage, working linked article has the headline "Texas Straw Poll draws small crowd". Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tentative keep. Most of the news coverage of this event was back in 2007 so I wouldn't be surprised if most of it had expired by this point. The coverage probably exists, but probably only in databases that are behind pay walls. If they don't hold the event in 2011, then bring it back for a second AfD but as for now, if I recall, there at least WAS enough notable coverage for an article when it was written. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"WP:N is satisfied". This can't be assumed. I entered "'Texas Straw Poll' and townhall" in the Google News Archive and got four instances of insignificant coverage plus one spoof. The local story linked in the article dismisses the event in its headline. Knowledge (XXG) is not the news. (And of course the candidates were minor, look at the number of convention delegates they got, or rather, didn't get.) Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like 24 g-news-hits to me. Let's try to avoid historical revisionism. Notability does not diminish with time. Convention delegates are a meaningless measure for the labeling of candidacies. Would Rudy Giuliani be considered a "minor" candidate because of low amounts of delegates?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I told you my search terms, don't spin. If you limit yours to 2007, it's 19. Among the remaining are the spoof, a post on lewrockwell.com, one on opednews.com, and a substantial number of the newspaper sources are mentions of people not participating. Is there any source saying this had any influence on the primary election or nomination? At all? This falls under "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" of WP:NOT. Hekerui (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
However Notability is not temporary, remember. If it was notable - at all - then, it's notable now. - The Bushranger Return fire 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm arguing it was not then because there are only some insignificant newspaper mentions and no indication in the reporting that this had any effect at the time (apart from people "hoping" it would). Hekerui (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The only spin is coming from you Hekerui. Your search needlessly limits the results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Salt. Currently the only sources used are forum posts and press releases which means that the article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article can be recreated if properly published sources are presented. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The first AfD was in Feb 2007 and the result was delete. The article has been created and deleted multiple times since then, all because there are no reliable sources to support an article. I've looked for references with the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a guide (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found nothing but forum posts, blogs, and press releases. I recommend deletion and salting until reliable sources appear and a proper article can be written. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Grant Ritchie (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 person U+003F 15:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - There is no coverage about him. There is some material about his startup company, Locationary, but I don't that even the company is notable yet as it is a startup from 2009, and also lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 (page blanked by author) by Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) (

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

Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of WP:BAND. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The page's references amount to some general festival websites, a page on Coldplay's website indicating that this band has released an album (admittedly, Coldplay appears to have liked them enough to give them the publicity), and some local coverage from the BBC. No indications that they have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works" (WP:BAND criterion 1) or "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" (criterion 4). The band have appeared at a few festivals, and those festivals have announced their presence, but not provided "significant coverage", and the band does not appear to have engaged in any national or international tours that could have received any coverage. (Opening for another band in their significant tour does not count.) WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. criterion 1), as referenced, the band have received coverage in DrownedinSound and Clash magazine as well as numerous other online and print media (I will add more, including The Sunday Times and The Independent).

Re. criterion 4), footnote 7 provides reference of the band's last national headline tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Footnote 7 is titled "The Domino State: Album, single and tour next month", which seems to hint that a tour is upcoming, but the article does not mention the tour at all (is it a grand tour of the entire UK, or a tour of local pubs in their home county?). It hardly counts as "significant coverage of a national or international tour" as required by WP:BAND. As for the coverage provided by the Drowned in Sound and Clash websites, these both appear to be blogs. Not being familiar with the British music scene, I will invite others to comment on the significance of coverage at these sites. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Drowned in Sound and Clash certainly aren't blogs - the former is the UKs largest independent music website (arguably the British equivalent of Pitchfork media) and Clash magazine is a nationally distributed print music magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Festival references now updated to relevant reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, re. footnote 7, the article clearly lists the four date national UK tour - Manchester, Nottingham, London and Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the updated referencing and concede that criterion 1 at least has been met? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.22.203 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Re. criterion 11 - reference to German radio playlisting now included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.22.203 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I believe the criteria for WP:BAND were made intentionally strict to prevent minor, unestablished bands like this one from receiving article treatment. They do have one album, but they now record under their own label, Exhibition. I would expect significant coverage to include at least the names of the band members and very few of the provided sources do. Eudemis (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"I would expect significant coverage to include at least the names of the band members and very few of the provided sources do" This seems to be someone adding their OWN additional criterion to WP:BAND. Hardly seems fair to me. However, references 1, 2, 11, 14 all mention individual band members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant3456 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing against the band, ref 2, “Drowned in Sound” is an online community where anyone who registers can post a review. Ref 14,“BBC Introducing”, is not a published source that in describing itself states, “we support unsigned, undiscovered and under the radar musicians.” It encourages unsigned musicians (no record label}, like the Domino State, to upload music to the site. Eudemis (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re. DrownedinSound - that is totally incorrect. DrownedinSound is a respected online music magazine and the reviews are by contributing journalists only. To say anyone who registers can post a review is simply not true. A brief glance at the website itself and its wikipedia entry will confirm the esteem with which it's held - drownedinsound. To quote: "On March 19, 2006, The Observer Music Monthly ranked DrownedinSound.com 9th on its list of top 25 internet websites. In November 2006 it passed the 150,000 unique readers a week mark and was nominated in the Best Music Website category at the 2007 PLUG Awards and the Best Website category at the 2007 Shockwaves NME Awards...In September 2007, DiS was nominated in two categories at the annual BT Digital Music Awards - best music magazine and best podcast (audio). In November 2007 DiS was named Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards." Inhabitant3456 (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Eudemis - your footnote 2 is a link to register to DrownedinSound's discussion forum. Most websites have one. It's not the same thing as the website itself.
Inhabitant3456 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re. BBC Introducing, have now removed. Please now see reference 1 for published BBC citation.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Inhabitant3456, not to beat this to death but you are incorrect. The Drowned in Sound staff listing is here. The review/info by Dom Gourlay is not by a journalist. It is by a member of the community. His user profile is here. If you join you are invited to submit reviews of albums. I joined and was asked to submit a review. The only requirement is that you provide your real name. BTW from Mr Gourlay's provided myspace page, he works as an auditor for the Royal mail service. Eudemis (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis, with respect you are completely wrong. Your reference 4 links to the staff page that clearly lists the person you refer to as a "Senior staff writer". Of course he is a member of the website forum ALSO - so are journalists on The Guardian - it doesn't lessen their status as a writer or that of the periodical. I really think you need to take this up as a discussion on the drownedinsound wikipedia page, because anyone who knows anything about UK media would understand that questioning DrownedinSound's credentials as a serious music website written by dedicated writers is a complete nonsense. Inhabitant3456 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) PS And you're absolutely right you can submit a review. Whether the editor would publish it on the main site is a different matter.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't correct protocol and will prejudice a decision towards deletion, but I feel very strongly it is unfair to name a third party who isn't directly related to this discussion and post a link to their personal myspace page. Eudemis, I have therefore edited your contribution to this discussion above.Inhabitant3456 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Inhabitant, you do not edit others' contributions, particularly when they prove you wrong. The listed reviewer has an admin position, includes his name in the review and he himself also lists his myspace page that indicates he works as an auditor for the Royal Mail Service and is not a journalist.Eudemis (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis - Anyone from the UK who knows about music would find your position laughable. Anyone who makes even the most cursory investigation into your argument would find it baseless. The website concerned is written by a small editorial team and freelance contributers - tightly editorially controlled and NOT via automatically published public contributions. Your own reference above clearly lists the person you refer to as "Senior Staff". Your argument is groundless and contrary to your own reference. Can you tell me how you read "senior staff" as "admin"? If you are so convinced of your absurd position on this website, I'd recommend you take it to the relevant place of discussion and not here.213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) PS I also completely stand by removing your very inapproriate attempt to "name and shame" someone not directly related to this discussion. If it means this page is deleted, so be it.213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Majeerteen. Consensus was to replace the content with some appropriate redirect. I'm editorially choosing "Majeerteen" because two people have proposed this, but the redirect target can be changed in the normal manner if required.  Sandstein  21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reer cumar ummad nabi (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)

WTF! Mannafredo (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also a version at Reer Cumar ummad nabi, of which this appears to be a duplicate. Yoenit (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Reer Cumar may refer to:
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:07, 29 November 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  14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Editor who created the article in question has since created two more about the same subject, with the same content, but with slightly different article names. I have gone ahead and deleted these according to the WP:CSD A10 criterion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

D. J. Williams (Canadian football) (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)

If the article is factual the subject passes Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)#American football/Canadian football but I can't find coverage in any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article. Without independent coverage the subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC and cannot be kept. Note, there is a DJ Williams that played with the Denver Broncos and a David Williams that was a wide receiver, neither is this DJ Williams. If anyone can find coverage of his CFL career I will happily withdraw this nomination. —J04n(talk page) 14:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Jayjg 05:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Funky Diamonds (album) (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 album. Group's notability is in question as well. Has not charted, it little more than a tracklisting, fails WP:NALBUMS. Unlikely to ever be expanded. Fixer23 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 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) 13:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Fail WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, WP:NFOOTY. Jayjg 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ger Hanley (footballer) (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)

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo 13:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

John Russell (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cian McBrien (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karl Sheppard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • The League of Ireland isn't a fully professional league but it is the highest level of football in Ireland. Should every LOI player who hasn't played abroad be deleted? Also, Hanley and Sheppard are current under-age internationals for Republic of Ireland. Juve curr (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna's_Taqueria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is essentially a promotion piece for a takeaway establishment. If not deleted entirely, it absolutely should not refer to the company's own menu to 'establish' itself as "inexpensive".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Places that sell burritos didn't seem to me to be a particularly notable topic in general and it seemed advertorial, so I decided to raise the AfD. However, I have no strong opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What about Taco Bell, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Del Taco, Qdoba Mexican Grill, Taco Del Mar, Taco Time, and every other restaurant listed at Category:Fast-food_Mexican_restaurants?
Refer to previous comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
To clarify... I raised the AfD because I didn't think the article should be there, but wasn't sure. (This is distinct from either a {{PROD}} or a more assertive argument for AfD.) The consensus is clearly to keep, and that's fine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Brandon (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Crystal article mostly based on speculation/rumours concerning a supposed Boys over Flowers "remake". So far I haven't heard of any official confirmation from Sarah Geronimo or ABS-CBN that backs up this claim. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jayjg 05:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Claims charting but these are not good national charts but are small organisations genre charts. Airplay is not rotation on national network. Play on Rage is only once (maybe twice), well short of rotation (and even a dog can get a video on Rage (as shown by John Safran's Music Jamboree)). Nothing else to indicate notability. Article appears to be created by their label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Last afd closed no consensus with a small participation duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

not very patient this bot :) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dan Inosanto. Unsourced material may not be merged into a WP:BLP, but may be merged from the history if sourced.  Sandstein  06:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

An obscure martial art with insufficient third person evidence to justify such an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Scurran (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 fails to meet either the general notability guidelines or those for an athlete. There is also no record of the subject having played varsity football for the Gators, "briefly" or otherwise; he was not a varsity letterman according to the 2010 Florida Gators Football Media Guide. Presumably, he was a 1960-something walk-on who was cut. According to online alumni directory records (registered UFAA service available only to UF alumni), he did graduate from Florida with a bachelor's degree in 1970. Bottom line: is a high school football coach who led the runner-up team in a high school state championship game notable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.. Fails WP:MMANOT. And in the future please don't delete the !votes of IP editors, they are also allowed to comment on AfDs. Also, if someone has !voted twice, do not delete the second !vote,, just note that it is a second !vote. Jayjg 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Henle (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)

Henle is only notable for his appearance on the Ultimate Fighter reality series, where he went 1-1. He trains at a very small and not very well known gym, also, has a record with win over non notable fighters. RapidSpin33 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep Once again, the gym is irrelevant. Has competed in Ultimate Fighter, which makes him notable, as an imdb ref (a reality show contestant) and we have pages for nearly all competitors who get into the house. Passes for coverage and is well known. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Note - passes WP:MMANOT, by virtue of having two UFC appearances and a Tachi Palace Fights appearance. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
How is the gym not relevant? Also, two "UFC" appearances?...nice try, but those bouts are not considered UFC fights. RapidSpin33 (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
They are.
Keep Notable enough, well written article, has pro fights. I don't see the reason to delete. BrendanFrye (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Questionable entry, but should keep. Article is well written and in addition to TUF, he has competed for a high level, regional promotion (Tachi Palace Fights). (Ppt1973 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ljubomir_Vračarević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete: Totally fake. Unproven ranks, self published material. Generally considered as a charlatan in Martial Arts community. Not worthy for WP:BIO.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne82 (talk • contribs) 2010/11/26 10:06:13

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

National Arnis Kali Eskrima Association of the Philippines (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)

Insufficient third person evidence to justify such an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters#Team Bullet Train (Team Shinkansen).  Sandstein  06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rail Racer (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 no third person sources to demonstrate that it is notable or like to be for such a minor character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creation of any redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Skyburst (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 is insufficient reliable third person to justify such an article therefore I nominate this article for deletion. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

An obscure martial art organisation with insufficient third person evidence to justify such an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I found no independent coverage that shows this organization is notable. None of the mentions I found were anything but passing. I did find some non-independent sources that mention "so and so is a member of" this organization, but I don't think that's enough to show the organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Two sentence article that gives no reason why the organization is notable and has no independent sources. My search showed no reliable sources supporting notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Found no evidence or sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Giraffe That Taught Me How To Laugh (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)

Unreferenced, no indication of notability per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books), and very little WP:Secondary coverage of the book online. Proposed deletion and endorsement removed by creator without explanation. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Forde (footballer) (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)

Footballer who fails WP:NSPORT as the League of Ireland isn't fully professional. Also appears to fail WP:GNG, as the only independent coverage is minimal. PROD contested on the grounds that other similar articles exist. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Theo Botha (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 almost CSD'd this - article fails WP:GNG and is either a bio by someone very close to the subject or WP:AUTOBIO. Tagged as non-notable for almost 2 years. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 7 November 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) 01:42, 14 November 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) 12:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This article should be deleted for the following reasons:

(1) In balance, the article is trivial, with no substantial information other than the subject's existence. He is merely one of many shareholder activists that every public company, especially major corporations, are faced with. With no clear programme, no considerable track record and no measurable success, the subject may belong in the occasional blog, but does not merit to be taken up in Knowledge (XXG). (2) The article does not meet the general notability guideline. (3) The article was clearly written either by the subject himself or by someone close to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.72.198 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: Relisted to allow a further analysis of the sources. The sole "keep" comment has not pointed out specific sources that establish notability, while the "delete" comments have not analyzed the live links as requested by Phil Bridger. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I've revived some dead links and (up to a point) improved the citations to help clarify any issues of RS compliance. I must say, looking at some of the articles: there are several that are basically about the guy, and the others seem to quote him every few paragraphs. I haven't hit all the links yet, but so far it seems he's well within WP:GNG, even if there might be WP:AUTOBIO violation here. He's also mentioned a couple times as a shareholder activist, in a book on executive pay . In short, I believe this is just a case of a messy, neglected (and, if WP:AUTOBIO vio, somewhat self-serving) biography that's nevertheless about someone reasonably notable. Yakushima (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as the reliable sources provided seem to (just about) constitute significant coverage. Needs some work, but seemingly meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Yakushima (talk · contribs) has conclusively established through a rewrite that Theo Botha is notable. Marvelous work on an article that looked like this. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Well, not really much of a rewrite. It needs a lot of work as an article, certainly. But the inline citations are all to RS, with live links and publisher info. Yakushima (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United Football League (2009). It's all supposition with references to more supposition. Until the franchise is awarded and the award can be verified, it belongs in the main UFL article in either the '2010-present' or 'future' subsections. KrakatoaKatie 23:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

UFL Los Angeles (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 football team does not exist. While sources suggest a possible franchise, it hasn't been finalized and not for certain. Some of the sourced info I'm sure could be merged into the article for the league, but this article doesn't need to exist as WP:CRYSTAL. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul McDonald (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete by TomStar81 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

BMB LU (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 college organization (not to mention hoax) that is a possible repost of this article. A lot of weasel wording with nothing to back it up (Googling for "Banya Mu Beta" resulted in a whopping two hits: a deleted Knowledge (XXG) article and its redirect). And of the seven references, one is the Myspace page of one of the supposed members and the rest are just random links that aren't even about the club. This just escapes the realm of CSD, but I think I'll be pulling out my galoshes before the week is over. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


what???? dont salt it. whatever you do, dont salt it. Skitole7 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just to put the whole thing over the top, I would also note that the tone of the article is inappropriate, the article is internally inconsistent in what it states, all the sources are fake, and the author apparently would rather pretend this is Uncyclopedia then be a productive editor. I've requested group salting of the pages and an indef block for the user at ANI. MSJapan (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy saline injection and delete - This needs to go. Tone wrong, hoax, and fails WP:N. A delete and a creation protection move would be fitting. Rory 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only reason I didn't suggest salting is because I didn't actually see the deleted articles (plus, they all had different names). Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient substantive and independent secondary sources to establish notability. Jayjg 05:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman (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 is continued discussion if he meets our inclusion guidelines. I find it to be close, with the only significant claim toward WP:PROF being his h-index. There was an AfD in May that was closed as keep, but it certainly wasn't a strong keep. See for ANI-related issues. There seems to be a sense that this belongs at AfD. This is a procedural nomination--I'm neutral. Hobit (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for considering potential future problems with the article as a replacement as opposed to notability itself? I don't want to say that it's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, but I'd prefer to stick to notability itself (and some good arguments to delete can be raised along those lines). Kansan (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I take your point, but it's simply another consideration added to the mix. If Reisman was clearly notable, then dealing with the mishegas of his attempting to own the article would be worthwhile, but since the subject is only borderline anyway... Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the main point here, Kansan, is that there just aren't enough sources to write up a bio, which is one of the reasons there were attempts to fill it out with his invitations to speak in various places. SlimVirgin 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
--GRuban (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Contrary to comments above, Reisman comes nowhere near satisfying either WP:PROF or WP:AUTH (which don't operate in "combination"). Anyone stating he meets these or anyother guidelines should do so with specificity. Four short reviews of one publication isn't enough. EEng (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a note to remark that if the article is kept on the basis of these short reviews, then it obviously needs to be rewritten to integrate those reviews into it, because if that's the basis of his notability, the article as is doesn't reflect it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • His book Turkey’s Modernization probably deserves an article given the number of reviews it has. But Reisman has published mostly outside that field, and his bio here is focused mainly on his other publications, which don't seem that notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • His Managerial and Engineering Economics book had an honorable mention by INFORMS. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promotion in any venue raises the question of whether the sources in the article are really independent of the subject, casting doubt on whether we can write a genuinely neutral article based on those sources. That is (in my view) part of why BIO (for general subjects) sets a higher standard of documentation than PROF: because PROF subjects (in general, with exceptions) are less likely to self-promote, it's easier to write neutrally from what's available when there's not copious material to work with.

    In this case the self-promotion is a given, so I choose to evaluate the article under general BIO rather than PROF. IMO, for living subjects in self-promoting fields, even the BIO standards are already way too low, but I don't think this subject meets BIO even in the wimpy way BIO is currently written. Even PROF is at best barely met. BIO calls for substantial secondary biographical sources that are at least nominally independent of the subject, and I don't see any independent biographical sources of any sort cited in the article, let alone substantial ones. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete, none of the sources thus far provided remotely demonstrate notability. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reviews found by GRuban would suggest, as Tijfo says also (if I read them correctly), that that one book might could be notable--I certainly wouldn't oppose an article on that book. But a set of reviews (they're not that short--they seem fine to me) on one of an author's books, with nothing else to go on, that's not enough for a biographical article. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Kapunda murders (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)

per WP:NOT#NEWS. The murders, while newsworthy, are unlikely to be of any lasting encyclopedic interest. Certainly there is no evidence of such provided in the article, which reads like a news brief. This is a contested PROD, no reason for contesting was provided Mattinbgn (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (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 does not look like a notable list; in fact, it looks more like an image repository more than anything. Suggest moving such characters to category-space instead (e.g. Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep / early close - See WP:SALAT. It's a well-presented list of clearly defined scope of conceivable use as a navigation and analysis aid, and is therefore within the allowable topics for lists. It's unsourced, but it's clearly capable of being sourced, and AfD is not for cleanup. I advocate early close as the nominator is clearly not aware of the relevant policies for lists and has presented no policy-based reason for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Upon review of the nominator's edit history I'm inclined to believe they probably are aware of the policies relating to lists, and that this nomination was made in error rather than ignorance. Still, speedy keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
SNOW, anyone? Purplebackpack89 03:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

The headcount is about 14-8 (in favour of delete). Normally to close against these numbers (as "no consensus" or "keep") would require a different balance in strength of argument or an overriding policy reason to keep. That just isn't the case here. Quite the opposite.

The keep !votes that focus on the news coverage that the case has received overlook the reason for the nomination being WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT: no-one disputes this has received coverage, the question is whether it has the impact or enduring notability required to overcome WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Even the keep !votes that address these policies/guidelines concede to some extent that it is largely too early to say. Without enduring notability or impact having been demonstrated, the consensus is to delete.

As DGG points out, the crystal-balling unvoidably covers both sides of the debate, it being too early to say there is no lasting impact or enduring notability). Accordingly there may be reason to recreate the article if such impact or notability comes to fruition in the future. Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance". unfortunately people disappear all the time and get murdered by ex-partners, don't see how this merits a WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:IKNOWIT is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
read trough WP:BLUDGEON as you referred to someone else. this article should be kept.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
seems strange that you refer to a WP guideline that you dont follow yourself by the way.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Per the white missing woman syndrome I personally believe that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Also I dont understand the WP:NOTMEMORIAL cause for deletion... I mean its hard to write about this kind of cases without mentioning the victim. To keep for know would be the best way in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also IP:89.240.110.122 for a person who doesnt like "these kind of articles" you seem to have a huge interest in the subject of the article as you have only made edits concerning Jenni-Lyn Watson. A contradiction in itself as you said delete.. hmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand your points, BUT I believe we cant assume that this case wont blow up to be in the same "crime size" as for example Elizabeth Smart. Her disappearance didnt garner alot of attention (atleast not more than this case in question) until she was eventually found and people became more aware of what had happened to her. If someone would have created a Elisabeth Smart article days after she disappeared then people could have claimed just exactly the same thing as you just did and it would have been deleted. I think we have to wait for atleast 2011 before someone can in reality evaluate if this is a Meredith Kercher case etc etc as you point out... The boyfriend havent told anything yet and she could for example be a victim of a serial killer or a sexual offerender or a sect... what ever.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think personally that people contradicts themselves when they write about other cases that didnt became big until sometime afterwards. Because that is what can happen to this case in the next few week,months.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't write articles first and then cross our fingers hoping that the subject matter will somehow become more notable down the road, no. When all you can say about an event is "girl missing, girl found dead, suspect arrested", that's really not worthy of an entry into an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
But there is more to the case. As I have pointed out above, and under this comment. If we should follow that example that you are saying we should have to delete basically all crime story article on Knowledge (XXG). And I dont buy that for a second.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also being top news on Fox News and ABC news from November 19 to now.. and still being mentioned confirms notaiblity beyond any of the WP-rules that has been brough forward by people in this discussion it also reminds me of another case that became very notable Natalee Holloway.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
/sigh Being "in the news" is not an adequate response to WP:NOTNEWS. We KNOW it is it "in the news", that is the point; it is ONLY a news story, one that is routine and not out-of-the-ordinary. Hundreds are killed across the country every day, many of them make the news, some catch the eye of the drive-by national cable media. Look at the google news hits right at this moment; 1 HuffPo, then it trails down into local syracuse.com coverage. This will in all likelihood fade into obscurity by the time this AfD's 7-day period is up. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And how can you ensure that this will fade away by this Afds end?.. How can you guarantee that something new in the investigation will be revealed on day 10 after the 7-day period that will make this case even more notable then it already is. Speculations from your side.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"can you guarantee that something new in the investigation will be revealed on day 10 after the 7-day period that will make this case even more notable " WP:CRYSTAL, so you are projecting future notability. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not guaranteeing anything, but as I noted above, the coverage appears to be diminishing, not increasing. But the point is, we should not approach these things with a presumption of increased notability down the road. What is out there right now in the news is insufficient to distinguish this from any other sad murder case. Your fervent desire to retain this article is based on a hope that the coverage will continue to grow. The Knowledge (XXG) does not...or should not, anyways...work that way. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment and opinion:For example this event has been one of Fox News and ABC news main news stories from the day she disappeared. Many young women disappears each month in the US not all get the this kind of attention that Jenni-Lyn Watsons has recieved so that speaks for itself also when it comes to her disappearance and deaths notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Without meaning to be offensive to the real tragedy of this event, I eat breakfast every day but I particularly enjoyed my breakfast this morning. The fact that today's breakfast is more notable than breakfast generally does not mean it satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policies or that it should have an article on Knowledge (XXG). In order to get an article, per WP:EVENT, my breakfast would need to have consequences of lasting significance, affect a broad geographic or demographic swathe, or be the subject of lasting discussion so as to demonstrate its enduring historic importance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do I want this deleted and think the murder of Sally Anne Bowman must remain? Certainly not because the latter happened a few kilometres from where I live. Sadly, you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by a stranger which reduces the notability of Jenni-Lyn's death. Also in Jenni-Lyn's case, a suspect was found and apprehended quickly. If this case is still remembered in twelve months' time, feel free to re-submit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.. Im not buying it, its a hollow argument. But respect your opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, "hollow argument" kind of undoes the "respect your opinion" thing. Best not to comment on every single remark, Babba. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't need a page for every victim of a crime. This person is otherwise completely unnotable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete whilst I'm probably just sounding like an echo, as above editors have mentioned this article really isn't suitable for inclusion, Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial or news service. The news coverage is, from an objective emotion-free point of view, not more than a trivial mention as television and print news outlets tend to publicize incidents such as this. This coverage does not establish notability and we cannot predict whether there will be ongoing or new coverage that will establish long-term notability. --§Pumpmeup 10:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly we cant predict if this article will reach an even higher level of notability one day after a potential deletion. In these kind of cases we shouldnt delete in the first few weeks. It is as simple as that. It has already reached notaiblity per coverage, per the fact of white woman syndrome etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
no BabbaQ that's WP:CRYSTAL. you are projecting and assuming future notability. suggest you stop responding to almost every single comment as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
you dont seem yo follow the WP:BLUDGEON guideline yourself by looking at your other mass Afd creations Libstar, so why asking the article creator in this particular afd to do so. he/she is simply trying to give his/hers point of view just like you do. just saying!--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but Edit As per "White Women's Missing Syndrome" I was directed to this article. I agree that the article should be edited with up to date information, nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.46.115 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — 68.96.46.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Just making this edit because the last edit before me was an undo of Libstar's previous edit by an IP. Normally an undo at an AfD would be a sign of vandalism but after comparing revisions everything checks out and nothing seems to have been lost. Libstar appears to have, whether accidentally or otherwise, deleted the arguments of another commentor, and the undo restores them. Hopefully this saves time for other editors scratching their head over it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
yes it was an accident. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:Note. Unfortunate and tragic events like this happen all to often. With a body already found and an alleged murderer charged in such a short time, the only notability would be the swiftness the body was found and, while tragic, there was no notability otherwise. Comparing this case to Elizabeth Smart is definitely wrong. She was missing for how many years, turns up alive and brainwashed and her kidnappers alive and charged. I noticed there is already an addition into the missing white woman syndrome page. It should be updated when and if a conviction is made. This is not a WP:CRYSTAL and we have no current way to show notability. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: per BabbaQ - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see nothing wrong with the article. I see no reasons for a delete.68.156.142.92 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    That is not a valid reason to keep an article, as it amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Well I did say that " I see no reasons for the article to be deleted", so if you feel there are reasons for the article to be removed, then please proceed to list some reasons why.

Comment:Also the fact that this Afd isnt a clear cut delete with many good points provided by the "keep side" points towards an interest and notability of this particular article. I also do believe that the Missing white woman syndrome list of women gives a great guideline to what kind of articles of this nature are usually created and not deleted on Knowledge (XXG). And I have read trough some of them about missing women, and to what I can see their isnt mutch difference between this article on Jenni-Lyn and several of those who are on that list and hasnt been deleted. It atleast shows some precedent and directions to what guideline Knowledge (XXG) has on this kind of subjects.Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The closing admin doesn't need you to pre-determine what the outcome is, thanks. Arguments are weighed on their own strengths and merits, not be a simple head-count. What he/she does need to note though is that you weighed in once earlier ("steady keep") followed by two bold-faced comments; these need to be counted as just 1 opinion to keep, and not 3. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that already. I am simply trying to save a save worthy article (in my opinion). And I do think we should and could keep our heads cold and being respectful towards each other and also not go to overdrive with the "accusations" everytime someone is trying to give new reasons (and good ones) for Keep. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I honestly dont understand why this happens in 90% of the Afd everytime a Keep-side person tries to give good and good faith reasons for non-deletion. I think it is sad honestly that we cant just give good reasons instead of giving reasons of to why the other user is insane. I feel offended actually. But that doesnt matter. I believe in my right to free speech.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, one thing is WP:BLUDGEON, where someone feels the need to respond to virtually every opinion from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it is better to say your piece and then generally sit back and let things unfold as they will. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes OK. Everyone can make mistakes I guess, im not admitting to anything and we I guess have to agree to disagree on some points. Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well in fact it doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS it has reached notability. So WP:EVENT does not apply. In my opinion. This is so obviously a NO Consensus Afd in my personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
BabbaQ, you should WP:LETGO and let the AfD run its course and not try to get the outcome you so want unilaterally. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:Notability (events): Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Knowledge (XXG) and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article. Thus, even coverage is not necessarily enough to meet notability. The question is: a few years from now, is this event still sufficiently notable. I don't mean to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think that this guidelines sums up the concensus of the people weighing in on the delete side of this argument. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Delete The criteria for NOT NEWS--what counts as recentism, and how one is to tell whether something will be historically notable, are not capable of exact definition. (Once something has become historically notable, then that can be determined. But if we are to cover anything that has happened in the last two or three years, we need to make a judgement, and I do not see how to make a judgement other than by entirely personal impressions. There are some rules of thumb--personally, I consider international coverage a reasonable guide, and I do not see it here. With murders, I think it's the firm consensus that single murders are not generally notable; where above it the cutoff should be is a little harder. Weak delete only, because there's no way of arguing the question. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to John Dilworth. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Completely unsourced, this article has no citations. I also doubt that the article is notable enough, but I can't find any citations related to the animated short. Any citations should be added to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 05:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular  20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYAJ (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)

NN orgs (radio stations) that do not indicate significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/DXET. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I draw your attention to the essay WP:MILL, which points out that, by a process of logic, the inclusion criteria MUST be relative, unless we are to include an article on every street, business, and private residence in the world. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (1) Every residential house has significant discussion in reliable independent sources by way of its filed documents relating to the building process. (2) Clearly not every residential house can have a page on Knowledge (XXG), as we have neither the editors to create them, oversight them, or maintain them, and it would hopelessly decrease the project's signal to noise ratio. (3) Therefore for items of which there are a very large number of highly-similar well documented instances, a higher standard than WP:N must be applied in assessing their claim to inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). What part of that isn't logical? And then I take it the further step of saying (4), radio and television rebroadcasters are an item of which there are a very large number of highly-similar well documented instances. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sourcing concerns have been addressed, including to the satisfaction of the nominator. Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Janette Luu (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)

Long unsourced article on a subject with no reliable secondary sources. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My sourcing concerns have now been addressed, not sure how I missed those while looking for sources. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad Panda Records (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 axed this after reviewing the csd-g11 request tag on the page, but it got recreated. Being that I lean toward inclusionism, I am giving the reborn page the benefit of a doubt. We are gathered here to determine if this article should remain on Knowledge (XXG). I cite advertisement and non-notability of the material as grounds for this afd. Note that the article's creator, Bad Panda, has been listed at usernames for admin attention since his name the article's name are near identical; if anyone here should notice a new user commenting on this afd please check to see if the person is in fact a renamed Bad Panda. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Doyle King (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)

Long unsourced article about a subject with no reliable secondary sources. Kevin (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, unable to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unreferenced biography of a living person. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —J04n(talk page) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Heath (racing driver) (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)

Long unsourced article about a racing driver about whom no reliable secondary sources exist. Kevin (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Takeshi Hayashino (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)

Long unsourced article on a subject with no reliable secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hardy (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)

Long unsourced article on a subject with no reliable secondary sources. The award noted seems to be of minor industry specific interest only. Kevin (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eric Pianka. The first AFD was during the time when we accepted 'lots of coverage', i.e. lots of Google hits, as sufficient proof of notability, but times have indeed changed. There's been very little improvement to the article since the previous AFD and the event itself has questionable notability per WP:EVENT. Merging into the Pianka article is appropriate. KrakatoaKatie 00:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mims–Pianka 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)
I have requested that a link to the previous AfD nomination of this page be linked here, as is standard procedure for AfDs. Since that hasn't been done in the usual manner I add the link here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mims-Pianka controversy. __meco (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a 2006 speech made at a scientific gathering. Two people (William Dembski and Forrest Mims) claimed, without any transcript or recording, that a scientist said controversial things. Most of the article is based on Dembski and Mims' blogs hurling accusations of "bioterrorism". Any well-sourced material should be merged in the articles of the authors (as it already is) and the article should be deleted. In the last four years, nothing has come of this. AlanW59Borr (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith in the absence of evidence of bad faith, no? --Danger (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this smells strongly as an attempt to censor Knowledge (XXG), both the nomination and then another fresh editor changing the articles. --Sander Säde 11:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about censorship. This is about nominating an article about something that happened in the blogosphere more than FOUR years ago and fails WP:EVENT. AlanW59Borr (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This controversy has clearly received enough mainstream publicity to make it notable. Then it matters not that the center of the controversy is poorly documented. __meco (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The information should be covered in the articles about the persons. An article about a "controversy" is not normal on WP. I am also concerned about BLP and NPOV problems if an article is only about negative things. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete An examination of the sources reveals that many are simply rehashes of other sources with some commentary, as is standard practice in blogging, and thus should not be considered distinct sources. There is no national or international coverage of any depth. (The one international source is a short spot that recaps a blog post that is already referenced.) Coverage is not persistent. The event appears to have had no lasting effects and has not become, say, an standard example of pro-extinction rhetoric or something like that. Thus, per notibility guidelines, this article should be deleted, with limited relevant material moved to related pages, with no prejudice against resurrection should the event become notable in the future. --Danger (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
NBC, Associated Press, Austin American-Statesman, News Weekly, The Gazette-Enterprise are all "blogs"?! Not to mention, the incident has already made into the books, , . I must say there is not a shred of doubt it satisfies "notibility" guidelines. --Sander Säde 11:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I got the sources confused. It is the "official" journalism stories that are merely rehashes of the Citizen Scientist posts. The News Weekly article, the international source, is primarily a summary of one of those posts. The NBC sources are local news, local interest stories. The books are more interesting, but the first is a short blurb in a self-published book (The Resistence is Mark Dice's personal publishing house for his manifestos (manifesti?), apparently.) So what we are down to in terms of lasting impact is three paragraphs. The controversy itself, by the dates of the sources, lasted a couple of days, trailing out about a week before it was discarded for more interesting chew toys. Not every stimulus the traditional media and the blogosphere grabs hold of warrants a Knowledge (XXG) article. --Danger (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Additional references at a national or international level:
Chronicle of Higher Education "Dr. Doom' Under Siege" April 6, 2006
Fox News from the Associated Press,
Washington Post

'CBS News These are international or national sources. They are all of them full stories. They are obviously based upon the original sources, as all journalism is. That they are all based upon the actual primary events is the case of all journalism and history. Some partially repeat--there are only the actual original statements--what should they rather have done, invent their own? But the Chronicle story is certainly independent--I go by it in judging the evaluation of the importance of academic events, as it is the only current major US current news source for this area. The CBS one reports on the controversy specifically, and shows the blog postings to have been worth the attention of a major news report. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education article, as do the other articles, just rehash Mims and Dembski (anti-evolution people) claiming a Pianka speech intended something with scientists disputing Mims' claims. The point isn't that sources should make stuff up, the point is that beyond the week blogs and a few news sources picked this up, it has no wider relevance. Nothing ever came of it or demonstrates significance. It is all started by Forrest Mims' posting on The Citizen Scientist (which he edits) wanting to get people, as the Chronicle pointed, to distrust scientists.
The article fails WP:EVENT. It does not "have enduring historical significance." It does not have "widespread (national or international) impact." A few news sources picked up Mims' posting. But beyond that this has no relevance. Keeping the article implies it has wider "historical significance." No one has demonstrated that.
As explained at Knowledge (XXG):EVENT#Duration_of_coverage: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Hence, it fails the criteria for WP:EVENT and should be deleted. AlanW59Borr (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Both users who voted keep gave good reasons, and no one besides the nominator wanted deletion. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Robinson (referee) (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)
  • Note: This debate was mirrored from Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charles Robinson (referee) as that was an improperly performed AfD, but it was valid. The nominator's post has been mirrored here and that page redirected here. That said, this debate should be considered the first nomination, despite the page's title which would be indicative of the contrary. -- ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 04:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete (nominator). This article has been tagged for almost a year but still lacks secondary sources to establish notability. (WP:GNG or WP:BIO) The tags have been removed twice (2-Dec-2009 and 23-Nov-2010) but without additional sources added. At present, there are 12 sources given but 5 of them are from WWE, Robinson's employer and are not independent. Four sources are from SLAM but include only incidental mentions of Robinson. (One of the SLAM sources, (8) doesn't even mention him, though he is in the photo.) The remaining 3 sources are from Online World of Wrestling but one (4) is a photo only and one (6) is only an incidental mention. The only source actually about Robinson is the remaining Online World of Wrestling page (5) but even it offers only minimal "career highlights." Moreover, as a commercial fan site, the Online World of Wrestling site is less reliable and independent than it should be to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Whether or not a source is or is not commercial is not a requisite of it's validity with regard to verifiability. Though a questionable one, Online World of Wrestling does appear to be a legitimate source of valid information regarding wrestling as much as The Wrestling Observer would be. SLAM! Sports is clearly a valid source though it is not in question here. WWE.com, though not an independent source, is a legitimate source. The question is in what capacity is WWE.com providing the information? I.E., if WWE.com announced, in the future, the death of one of their present or former talent, should we shun it due to it coming from the WWE.com whether it is fact or not? A primary source can indeed be used as a proper resource granted that it is a reliable source, under the guidelines set by WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP. Granted, WWE.com may sometimes take liberties with facts and news - as anyone familiar with the Jeff Hardy situation regarding Survivor Series (2008) is well aware of, but it was - however, the first to post on Chris Benoit. That said, it does have merit as a valid resource. Admittedly, resources of information on Charles Robinson are extremely limited, however, it is indisputable that his role in WCW, one of the two largest wrestling promotions in the world during the '90s, was pivotal. That said, on the question of whether or not the article subject is notable, the answer is yes. Proving it, on the other hand, with a significant amount of third-party resources, especially as most news outlets - even those with a focus in the professional wrestling niche - do not give much in the way of coverage of referees as they do Managers/Valets and Pro. Wrestlers themselves, is difficult at best and borderline-impossible at worst. That said, I move for a keep of the article, but a weak one. Perhaps further valid sources will become available. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Speaking as someone who has done research the old-fashioned way since about the mid-1980s, ANY page on Knowledge (XXG) whose sources are 100% web-based is suspect in my opinion. It's why the vast majority of pro wrestling pages suffer from both systemic bias and undue weight in excess. The web's approach to pro wrestling from the start has been to disregard or reinvent its history. Prior to the web, the business had never carefully documented its history to start with, nor sought to attract third parties who could or would. Before I start ranting here, let's just say it makes for a mess. Far too much weight is given to present-day attitudes and perspectives. Which finally brings me around to my point. I haven't watched a whole lot of pro wrestling since Robinson has been in the business, but I can state that he is far more notable than probably 100+ current indy wrestlers who do have pages. Those pages probably contain the same sources or chain of information as this one, and are probably not being considered for deletion by anyone. Go read To Be the Man and I'll bet you $2.98 that you'll find something useful to this page. My copy is in storage, or I would help you. Finally, at some point this year, the page "Dick Worley" was deleted. That was probably a good thing, because his last name is actually spelled WOERHLE. The article was 98% devoid of useful content, but he certainly is in the same boat as Robinson (many years as a referee, worked at both WWF and WCW, frequently identified on-air by name). But that just further confirms my belief that how many years one is removed from the business in somehow a factor in forming these pages, and that's perhaps a separate issue.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article is a very different article to the article that was nominated. Since the improvements, no-one has argued to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Into Oblivion (video 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 video game, no mention of publisher or game system, totally unreferenced, may very well be something someone made up one day, only "external" links point to users own desktop WuhWuzDat 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Non notable because it is 24 years old. Publisher mentioned. Images uploaded properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Delete' - Definitely not made up. However, videogames (even old games) aren't inherently notable, and there's no evidence either in the article or in my good faith searches of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also, the images in the article have an insufficient fair use rationale and the article text appears to be a copyright violation of this site (unless it's just back of the box text, in which case it's a copyvio of the original product). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Screenshots are from my PC even if they are not, it is irrelevant due to the fact the game is no longer copyrighted and is a free download. Publisher no longer exists. Satisifies WP:FAIRUSE
  • WP:SCREEN is not WP policy and just recommendations. Screen grabs are not violating copyrights.
  • Referencing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS adds strength to argument to keep page - since notability is being contested, this argument can be introduced.
  • And if you'd read the page, you'd see that the thrust of it is that merely claiming that other stuff exists is not a helpful argument - that it can only be a valid keep reason where you reason from the existence of article A and B through to a benefit to the project in keeping article C. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • And again, if you'd read that page, instead of attempting witticism, you'd see it's arguing against spamming links without bothering to explain or argue your interpretation of them. While we're on the subject, doing something you don't appreciate in order to show someone else how annoying it can be is specifically against Knowledge (XXG) policy. See WP:BEANS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Into Oblivion, Amstrad, Mastertronic 199 1986 and probably used on another cover much earlier as the painting was made well before the game was published" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.231.91 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Community (season 1). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Art of Discourse (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)

Nom for lack of notability. Page is concerning a single, minor episode of a television series. There is no information found on this page that can not be found by simply viewing the episode itself. No additional info has been included outside of a plot summary and a single sentence stating the writer and director. Zero outside references are used in this article and the Ext links section contains only the TV.com, IMDb and network site for the episode (though I realize that is not necessarily a bad inclusion.) This article contains no ratings information, no production info - no pop culture relevance at all to warrant the creation of the page. At present, only a small number of individual episodes have spawned their own pages but they mostly meed the criteria for an episode page. As for "The Art of Discourse", what is included in this page (episode title, number, prod code, writer, director, guest star, plot, orig air date, etc...) can currently be found on the episode list for both the series and the season. Therefore, in deletion, no important episode information will be lost - nor is there any need to "merge" into an episode list...it's already there. I'm a huge fan of the show and I'd love to see this page expand. I just don't think that's going to happen. This page ABSOLUTELY merits AfD.

(This is all in addition to an unusually long plot summary that really reads more like a script and stage directions. If this article were to be stripped down to the most essential and pertinent information, the entire page would contain about five sentences, and infobox and three external links.)ocrasaroon (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Nominated for deletion in 2005, but rationales at that time were poor, TBH - the three keep votes had "GHits" for one, and nothing at all for the others. Having gone over the article, it does not meet WP:POLITICIAN - he has never held office, does not seem to have significant press coverage because he is not a major local political figure, and that lack of coverage also affects his ability to meet the GNG. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Epworth Day 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 started out as a cfd, then moved to a prod since schools don't get cfd'd, but the prod tag was removed and I do not really see a change in the article context from one t the other. I was going to re-add the prod tag, but the template stated if the tag had been removed it should not be replaced, so I elected to bring this here since I feel this article in its current form should get the axe on no notability, referencing, and advertisement grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned this constitutes an attack page. PhilKnight (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence of notability. Jayjg 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

2PR FM (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)

Internet "radio" station of dubious notability. There are a few refs in the article, but these are mainly from the station's own site. Those that aren't are more about the station's creator, who is blind and has Asperger's syndrome. The callsign used is not official and seems to have been chosen by the station owner. A google search finds very little that isn't generated from the station's website AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on this topic. First, however, I must debate the usage of the iverted commas around the word "radio" by the user AussieLegend. Please forgive me if I am mistaken, however, this reads to me like AussieLegend does not believe that internet radio is truly radio. Maybe it's not radio but Knowledge (XXG) has an article on the subject as well as a list of internet radio stations. When editing an article people are supposed to keep personal opinions out of it as humanely possible. Wehter or not internet radio is truly radio is a debate for the aforementioned article on internet radio.
Whilst I agree that there are only a few references in the article, most of which link directly to the site the article is about, I have checked the artciles of three other radio stations, so far, all from the same area, Sydney, all of which contain only a few references, the majority of which link back either to the web-site of the station or to a web-site owned by the station's parent company. Does this also make the stations of dubious notability and should thus be nominated for deletion? The stations in question are Mix 106.5, 101.7 WSFM and Edge 96.1. KatCassidy (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal opinion has nothing to do with it, although my engineering specialty is radio and communications. Internet "radio" is not radio. End of story. As an engineer I can't give credibility to a misuse of "radio", any more than I can support "mtr" as an abbreviation for metre. As for the other articles, Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can see where you are coming from with "radio" vs "internet 'radio'" which is also known as "webcasting" - no argument there. Would the "Other Stuff Exists" rule apply for placing this article into the catergory of "Internet Radio Stations"? Should the articles regarding internet radio be renamed "webcasting"? Or should I take that up on the talk page of those articles? (Please note: I have a bad tendency to sound like I am being sarcastic when I'm not so if any of my questions come across as sarcastic please accept my apologies as they are not intended to be so) KatCassidy (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why the 2PR FM article is being targeted for deletion, as I noticed the sources from the bottom were from major newspapers like the ZD Net, Penrith Press, and the St. George Leader. I'm just rather curious as for example when checking WSFM 101.7s article, it only has two references, both of which are from the station site itself, and the other from an announcers blog. On the other hand with 2PR FM, the last four links on the bottom were these:

When noting one of the opinions above as "net radio is not real radio", isn't this an opinion, and aren't the above four sources good enough to make this a notable article in it's own right? Whitewater111 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Further to my comments above, I've just checked the last two references out of the three given on WSFM's article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/101.7_WSFM

and they both point to the WSFM website. The first link above, pointers to a Antenna technical sight, which I'm not sure of the credibility of? Can anyone please elaborate on this first reference? many thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Firstly "net radio is not real radio" is not an opinion, it's a technical fact. Net "radio" is more analogous to a telephone. Secondly, the 101.7 WSFM article is irrelevant here. A comparison with that article falls right into WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for the references, this was addressed in the nomination rationale. The first and fourth references are from the same local newspapers, printed one day apart. The fourth reference in particular has a strong focus on the owner and his medical conditions; the article is more about him than his webcast. Together the citations do not constitute "significant" coverage. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
In your reply, you note that the first and fourth links were one day apart. Don't you think the fact that the station got two articles over two days is "significant" coverage? And also your argument keeps homing back onto the difference between internet radio and real radio. So the basis of your argument is a technical one, which I agree with, but based on this it is a technicality, rather then a notability issue. What I understand here is, Apple and PCs are two totally different computer systems, but your noting Apple is not notable because it is technically different, and has a smaller market share. On this I would feel that a source citation notation for the article would be more appropriate then a deletion. You also note that one of the articles is more about his handicaps then the net station, I would assume that is why the station is notable, because it was established by someone who had severe disabilities Whitewater111 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Two articles in a local community newspaper is not significant coverage. WP:GNG says that ""significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The fourth reference addresses Mark Boerebach directly, with 2PR FM as a side issue. Notability is not inherited. Just because Mark Boerebach may be notable (that's an issue for another AfD) doesn't mean that 2PR FM is. As for my argument "homing back onto the difference between internet radio and real radio", that's not at all correct. You asked a question and I answered it. It is you who is homing. The fact that it's not real radio is not directly relevant to its nomination. However, it was important to note that this is not a real radio station because the callsign misleadingly implies it is. Callsigns are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, not individuals. The "FM" component of the callsign is grossly misleading as "FM" is reserved for radio stations that transmit in the FM broadcast band using frequency modulation, which is certainly not the case with 2PR FM, which web-casts over the internet using digitised audio. Your Apple/PC analogy is so severely flawed it's not worth discussing, since the technical differences have nothing to do with notability and, while Apples and PCs are both types of computers, 101.7 WSFM and 2PR FM are not both radio stations. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is general agreement that this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR #6).  Sandstein  06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish inventors (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 only is this a messy, unsourced, unmaintained list that has already once been deleted here, but it seems to redefine what it means to be an "inventor" - listing numerous vaccine discoverers and mathematicians as "inventors." It's also an irrelevant intersection for both religion and ethnicity lists. Bulldog123 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American engineers. No, this list was recreated after once already being deleted. And it was - in no ways - improved from the previous version. Bulldog123 05:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've expressed elsewhere how dissatisfied I am with group AfDs, and it's borne out here by that discussion having no mention of the term "inventor" and instead focusing on the uselessness of an article on Jewish engineers, with which I agree. There was no relevant debate on the inventor article - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds like the utterance of a man who's run out of arguments. Listen, there'd clearly be no problem with a List of female heads of state (oh look, there it is!), which is a post in many countries not handed out on the basis of gender. They're notable not just because they're heads of state, but because they're female heads of state. There's no sense in which race or religion is less notable than gender, so unless your argument is that "inventor" isn't specific enough (it's fine, we have an article on it) there can be no argument that this list falls outside of the lists allowed by WP:SALAT. It needs to be trimmed to being a list of people notable for being Jewish and for being inventors, but AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realize you're calling me out for "running out of arguments" while your argument in the previous comment was "I don't like mass AfDs." Right? These people are not notable for being Jewish inventors in any way shape or form and -- though I haven't checked thoroughly -- I'm fairly certain none of this people are famous for being Jewish either. Your female heads of state argument only supports deletion. Bulldog123 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it is an "intersection," but it is a meaningful intersection in both an objective and a subjective way. While it is true that there is a grey area that can be identified in defining both "Jewish" and "inventors" there is also an innate public interest in both topics and consequently the intersection of the two topics. Defining the designation of Jewish and inventor would represent an improvement in the article. But failure to refine these definitions would not constitute a good enough reason for deletion. The article is not bad in its present state. It is a repository for a potentially useful tool for research. I think it also makes good general reading. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is meaningful. However, let's get back to definitions and define inventor. It's a very shaky area. We may agree that John von Neumann and Leó Szilárd are first and foremost scientists rather than inventors, but this dichotomy of science and engineering is debatable, and then Szilard is in the National Inventors Hall of Fame. FWIW. Never mind, List of Russian inventors is even worse. East of Borschov 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • List of Russian inventors is a sub-division of a nationality list... which includes many individuals who are not ethnically Russian... and makes no attempt to suggest that being Russian and being an inventor is linked. This list is a purely ethnicity list (and in some ways - a religious list) and because of it's very existence... DOES suggest being Jewish and being an inventor is linked. My question is... how?. Bulldog123 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)
  • Comment - It seems to me that it is precisely because of the complicated nature of Jewishness that this list is so difficult. Do all inventors with Jewish mothers consider themselves to be 'Jewish Inventors'? It seems unlikely and, if they don't, then it is hard to see the point of including them in the list. Equally, some inventors may have converted to Judaism, but not have any ethnic connection. Are they 'Jewish Inventors'? Does it matter? I won't argue with you that the nature of being Jewish is a particularly interesting question, but that does not have any bearing on whether or not this list should be kept.--Korruski 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
We generally reflect people as part of a cat or list if they were at some point in time a member of it. Even if they reject it at a later point, as Bobby Fischer rejected the U.S. Other lists pose the same issues, as in List of Palestinians and List of Palestinian-Americans on the one hand, and List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Muslim actors, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of American Muslims, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, List of Iranian Arabs, List of Arab American writers, and List of Arab scientists and scholars on the other hand, but at this point I see that as an issue for the list but not for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
None of these are equivalent for precisely the reasons you have explained in your post above.--Korruski 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are similarities and differences. People might well say that the Arabs are an ethnicity but not a nation, and the Muslims are a religion and not a nation, and the Palestinians are a people but not a religion. The Jews are all three. Hence, the similarities and the differences. But those are issues for the list construct, and not for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong  19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = inventors. SnottyWong  19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, many don't care one whit for DGG's err-on-the-side-of-inclusion point of view and odd interpretations of notability guidelines. I surely do not. Don't cite other user's opinions as if they have greater weight than any of our own, please. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem about inclusion is choosing which people to write Knowledge (XXG) articles about in the first place. Lists are devices for navigation and browsing and nothing more. Whatever articles we do or do not have, we should provide good access to them. I have the same opinion about lists in those fields where I think we should have more stringent notability guidelines--if the consensus is to have them, they need to be properly indexed. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago: . He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email. Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • No... not reasonable, and wrong forum. As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take a suspicion based upon one recent edit and then activity from "some years ago" to a different forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal request at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt, 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note - I have been contacted at my talk page to participate in similar AfDs, but Epeefleche is well aware that I do not support his viewpoint on this, so you should consider the possibility that he is approaching both sides equally and, therefore, not breaching any guidelines.--Korruski 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Epeefleche contacted me also as a result of my participation in the Nobel laureates AfD though I hold the opposite viewpoint. In this case I believe their actions were neutral in nature. Resolute 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're both being fooled by Epee's third-grade tactics. For every 1 delete !voter Epee contacts, he contacts 10 !keep - usually under the guise of neutrality - and he's been doing this on Jewish AfDs for 3 years. I already collected the diffs for Category:Jewish figure skaters. Do I seriously need to go back further and show you the countless times Epee has instigated WP:CANVASSing campaigns? This user has a history of disruption. WP:AGF is out the window. Bulldog123 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any need to discuss emails from nearly four years ago. On the other hand, my request relates to your untruths on this page this week (though fixing your untruths elsewhere would also be appreciated).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I do see the need, because it's evidence that you have yet to learn that canvassing inclusionists to come "save" a list is not the same thing as a "neutral" notification. Before your 65-edit spree, you directly contacted User:DGG to participate in the Jewish lists. Anybody with eyes can see DGG's own personal view on lists makes him an inclusionist. Bulldog123 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Edits from nearly four years ago are not evidence of anything relative to this AfD. But this week you have made mis-statements at this AfD and elsewhere. Please correct them, as I've requested above. As to DGG, I think he ably responded to your charge on his talkpage and at the AfDs already, so you can stop repeating yourself, since I assume that your goal is not to be disruptive by repeating yourself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWong  18:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had already opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that the neutral notification was not "targeted" to any one mindset nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt, 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's interesting how you use the word "accusation" - as that term heavily implies that my assessment may not be right. The simple fact of the matter is - Epeefleche has been CANVASSING !keep-prone individuals to Jewish AfDs/CfDs for years. There is no longer a need to WP:AGF. Just because Epee happens to be on your side in this matter, doesn't mean you should be blindly protecting him. Bulldog123 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bedri Gashi (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, no reason given. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of media coverage. --Jimbo 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Spartaz 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dražen Ajković (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. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro league." Similar articles were deleted as a result of Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Miloš Dragojević. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the following articles for deletion for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Petar Vukčević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dragan Bošković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jovan Nikolić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radivoje Golubović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ttonyb (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence of notability. Jayjg 05:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenpark Villa (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)

Still no sources supporting notability for this apartment building. JNW (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (categories)

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

The result was keep. Spartaz 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Historic recurrence (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 about a synthetic concept. A synthetic concept may seem notable because the author can cobble together and cite many related works, however the entire concept itself is synthesis. Gigs (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think that this article can be called "synthesis" with a link to original research, because reference is made to the theories of many notable thinkers. I would like a better description of the work of G.W. Trompf, because, based on the title of Trompf's book, it seems to be perhaps the strongest reference. It's a bit sketchy now - how about publisher, ISBN and so on, plus a more detailed summary of Trompf's thinking? Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • G.W. Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, from Antiquity to the Reformation, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979, ISBN 0-520-03479-1, is available for review online as a Google Books result. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I have added, to the article, G.W. Trompf's summary of major views and paradigms of historic recurrence. Thank you for the suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Assembling the theories of many notable thinkers to support a concept that none of them specifically wrote about is indeed what synthesis is all about. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If you read the Trompf quotation, you will find that all the arguments made in "Historic recurrence" are there. The other sources corroborate him. Nihil novi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • But it's only a problem if a Knowledge (XXG) editor does it, not if Garry W. Trompf, erstwhile professor of History at the University of Papua New Guinea, does it.

          And if you don't like a (now) emeritus professor of the History of Ideas at the University of Sydney, I can give you a Regius Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen linking all of these things together, too, bringing Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee — two people notable by their absence from this article — to the table as well. Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin had a little something to say on the matter of recurrence, too, and he's not yet mentioned either. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

          • Graham, Gordon (1997). "Recurrence". The shape of the past. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192892553.
          • Toynbee, Arnold J. (1948). "Does History Repeat Itself?". Civilization on Trial. New York: Oxford University Press.
          • Sorokin, Pitirim Aleksandrovich (1957). Social and cultural dynamics: a study of change in major systems of art, truth, ethics, law, and social relationships. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishing. (also available reprinted 1985 by Transaction publishers)
            • These look like more suitable sources. Maybe the article can be saved after all. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Most of the footnotes aren't really useful. Many of the citations seem contrived. It brings up dubious legendary ideas like Montezuma submitting before Cortez because he thought he was a God. I believe this is just one person's take on the historiography of mankind, sort of a new age world-spirit type analysis. Toynbee attempted to explore the various ways that civilizations adapted and changed, and it was mostly pseudoscientific to his own admission. Spengler took an organic evolutionary view of history. I don't believe either of them asserted anything that has to do with this article. Their ideas are referenced and encyclopedic in content, this one is just pop-history. I say delete.24.250.242.46 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
              • The IP editor's argument seems to be that the the article should be deleted because he or she doesn't like the article, and that's a pretty weak argument. This editor also seems to believe that Knowledge (XXG) functions like the editorial board of an academic journal, and that approving an article means that we somehow endorse the "truth" or academic validity of the topic described in the article. That's not so. Knowledge (XXG) has plenty of room for articles about "pseudoscience" and "pop-history", as long as such topics are shown to be notable by discussion in independent, reliable sources, and the articles are written from the neutral point of view and referenced properly. If the editor finds that some of the footnotes "aren't really useful", then remove those footnotes and explain why on the talk page. If the citations seem "contrived" then challenge them on the talk page and either remove them or propose others. If the IP editor has more information about what Toynbee and Spengler thought about this topic, then add that information and reference it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, no, that's not what they said at all. They went through the citations and explained why they didn't think they were appropriate for this article and how they weren't being treated in an encyclopedic manner. Dismissing that as an "I didn't like it" vote is bordering on incivility at best, and at worst is intellectual dishonesty. The article still has very serious issues, even if the concept can be shown to be notable. Stubbing it way down and rewriting it from more solid sources like Uncle G has provided would be the best thing to do if this is kept. Gigs (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I didn't see an explanation from the IP editor as to why the citations were "contrived" or a listing of specifically which ones the IP editor objects to. I didn't see any specific references to Knowledge (XXG) policy or guidelines to back the recommendation to "Delete". As for Montezuma thinking Cortez was a god, I think that the factual basis of Cortez's claim is less important than the impact that the Cortez story has had on how "western civilization" views its own history over the past 500 years, at least with regards to this particular case. The same thing goes for similar stories about Polynesia and New Guinea. I think that it is indisputable that the ideas described in this article have had an impact on modern consciousness, and that the topic itself is established by the sources as notable. The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether the article should be kept or deleted. We make those decisions based on established policy regarding notability, sources and so on. A recommendation to "Keep" is not an endorsement of the theory described in the article, or a statement that the article in its current state is an excellent one. Personally, I happen to think the theory is hogwash, but I also happen to believe that Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on it, and that the current article is a halfway decent start. Sure, it needs better references and a more neutral description incorporating critical viewpoints. I base my AfD recommendations on established policy and guidelines. I didn't see the IP editor refer to any of them. If this be "incivility" and "intellectual dishonesty", then please elaborate, Gigs, so that I may learn and improve my thinking. I have a thick skin. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for addressing the article. I was really uncomfortable with it being edited by one person and containing a lot of what seemed to me questionable ideas. I checked the talk page and it seemed like two years ago a general agreement was reached over it being worthy of deletion. I could find no record of it being addressed in this manner, but tried to bring attention to the article through non-vandalism edits. This has been enlightening to watch and I am still learning the workings of wikipedia. I apologize if I offended anyone.24.250.242.46 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The material currently in the article shows the notability . The Trompf book and the chapter in

Toynbee's book are sufficient sources to show that. The concept may be regarded by some as over-systemzation, but that is not our concern. The concept exists and is notable. Some of the material is a little over-detailed, and is written a little too much in the form of an essay with possibly a little too much synthesis, but that can be dealt with easily enough. I started by removing the long footnote example from Twain about the celebrated frog. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Spartaz 20:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

1. Notability WP:GNG - no secondary sources on the topic, my search for some failed - google hits were for book/theory WP:NRVE 2. so that leaves this article as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Widefox (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, Google books give me 600 hits for the string "Conflict Continuum". Each of these articles talk about continuum of conflict in their abstracts:
Muro, D. The politics of war memory in radical Basque nationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies v. 32 no. 4 (May 2009) p. 659-78
Furlong, K. Hidden theories, troubled waters: International relations, the ‘territorial trap’, and the Southern African Development Community's transboundary waters. Political Geography v. 25 no. 4 (May 2006) p. 438-58
Kanavou, A. A. How Peace Agreements Are Derailed: The Evolution of Values in Cyprus, 1959-74. Journal of Peace Research v. 43 no. 3 (May 2006) p. 279-96
Aydinli, E. Before Jihadists There Were Anarchists: A Failed Case of Transnational Violence. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism v. 31 no. 10 (October 2008) p. 903-23
Flanigan, S. T. Nonprofit Service Provision by Insurgent Organizations: The Cases of Hizballah and the Tamil Tigers. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism v. 31 no. 6 (June 2008) p. 499-519
Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how strict you have searched? Google books ("Conflict Continuum" Medea) gives 32 hits, only 1 with all terms, which is by Andra Medea . I do not find a single secondary source. If they exist please add to the article, as required to establish notability. Currently it fails WP:GNG Widefox (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking at those references to no avail. Please list which of these references actually refer to this theory by Andra Medea, rather than just being google hits for a couple of words. Widefox (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (typo fix) Widefox (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I found the references given in the H. W. Wilson Databases: Social Sciences Index/Abstracts/Full Text, see http://www.hwwilson.com/Databases/socsci.cfm . I was looking for references for "conflict continuum" as a modelling method. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You did not actually say which reference refers to this theory by Medea. Despite several of us looking, no reference has been produced. Widefox (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to build an article talking about "conflict continuum". I do not have access to the book by Medea so can not comment on it. I have never claimed to have a reference to any 'theory by Medea'. Just trying to be positive.... I suppose it is a bit of an inclusionist/deletionist discussion. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
ok, good. glad we are starting to agree. That other editor already told you that you're setting yourself up for an WP:OR article. Widefox (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not tell me "ok, good. glad we are starting to agree". It is very hard not to see this as a editor vs editor argument. I am trying to find secondary sources --- I am unwilling to work much harder at it. I perceive the two editors on the negative side have made little effort to be positive. I don't think Ms. Medea understands the problem. I will now delete all these discussions from my watchlist... and go out to a property here in NSW and do a bit of farm work. Goodby, Ariconte (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Reaching consensus is exactly what the purpose of this page is for. Widefox (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, A Yahoo search finds 163 results for "Conflict Continuum Andra Media" all secondary sources which reference the book and theory including an interview on Chicago Public Radio. This definitely establishes notability. There is no justification for the call to delete this article.ProfGiles (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, when I search "Conflict Continuum Andra Medea" (not Media) on Yahoo I get 164 hits, of the first 5 pages that I looked at none were valid references. The best hit was Chicago Public Radio which is an interview with Andra Medea. I repeat, I have found no secondary sources, and none are listed above. Widefox (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (text updated due to typo x2) Widefox (talk) Widefox (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this person is the nominator.
  • Delete. This Google Scholar search turns up nothing by Andra Medea on this subject, suggesting that it has not made it into peer reviewed venues. It certainly doesn't seem to have been discussed widely enough to be notable. The press with which Medea's book is published seems to publish just that book; I smell vanity publication. The article calls her a "University of Chicago educator," but this search for her name on the University of Chicago site returns only one hit, where it seems she was hired to teach one course in a certificate program affiliated with the school in 2003-2004 (i.e., not to the regular student population); there is no evidence that she was retained after that time. This article is WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. RJC Contribs 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This Google Scholar search turns up lots of hits about 'conflict continuum models' which is what I took the page to be about. Please see the articles talk page for a suggested solution. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hit number 1: "A mutualism-parasitism continuum model and its application to plant-mycorrhizae interactions." Number 2: "… sexual selection in external fertilizers: variances in male and female fertilization success along the continuum from sperm limitation to sexual conflict in the sea urchin …" Number 3: "A continuum model for the dynamics of flow-induced crystallization." Those hits, which say nothing about conflict continuum models? Or how about this search, which puts the relevant phrase in quotation marks: it returns two hits, neither of which have anything to do with the subject.
As to your suggestion on the article's talk page, we have an article on conflict management. If this one were to be recast as something different from its current focus on a particular consultant's unnotable theory, it seems that editors would have to engage in original research. RJC Contribs 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice to future discussions. It is clear that editors are attempting to create a different article with the same name the notability of which would not be attached to Medea's theory. I am doubtful that they will be able to succeed (we already have conflict management), but this deletion discussion is now largely moot. I would not object to raising another deletion discussion in a couple of months once it is clear where these efforts are going. RJC Contribs 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete.I’m the theorist behind the model in question, and I am also in favor of having this entry deleted.
    The author of the article was Frank Rawland. He may have been a Knowledge (XXG) enthusiast, but it’s doubtful he was an academic. If I understand the discussion correctly, Knowledge (XXG) guidelines are to hold articles to academic standards. It’s hardly surprising that a non-academic would have difficulty.
    It would take a good deal of work to update this article, and apparently I am precluded from doing it. For instance, I do not now work for the University of Chicago and am no longer in academia. These days I work with lawyers and judges; my latest project was released by the American Bar Association. Nonetheless, the fact in the article is inaccurate.
    This is a complicated model in a complicated field. Mr. Rawland did the best job he could with the materials he had.
    Now, I do object to an unsavory tone in the discussion. I appreciate your need to be vigilant against self-serving interests. You clearly are committed to high quality in Knowledge (XXG), which is no small endeavor in an often anonymous, international project. Knowledge (XXG) is an accomplishment, and it’s due to adhering to high standards.
    However, all this can be done in a neutral manner without casting aspersions. If you expect contributors to adhere to high standards, then it’s equally fair that we can expect you to assess that work in a professional and fair-minded fashion. Amedea (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Andre - Did you see my comment on the article's talk page??? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Conflict_Continuum Do you think we can expand the lead in my sandbox??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Amedea, off-topic discussion on editors continued on your talk page. Widefox (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ariconte, it's possible your approach could work. An expanded lead could cover other conflict continuum models, which would clear some confusion. This is my field, so I have the information. Perhaps I could submit material to a disinterested third party, rather than posting myself. That should preclude any question of conflict of interest.
That would take the issue back to notability, which may not be hard to clear up. Amedea (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I change my ' vote.' It’s easy to see where notability would be confusing. This may be an unfamiliar field, and it appears people are searching for verification through web sources. Material in this field is not always available online. Anyway, here is a case for notability.
1. Reviews for Conflict Unraveled were excellent. Reviews do not always stay posted to the web. Fair use guidelines forbids reprinting extended quotes, which is why reviews often look suspiciously choppy.
Because of the nature of this debate, I believe fair use will allow me to temporarily display a full, uncut review by Dr. E. James Lieberman, Clinical Psychology Professor at George Washington University, writing in Foreword Magazine. You can read the full review here.
I believe Dr. Lieberman at the time was chair of his department. In any case he is now retired, so if you search their current directory he may not be there. However, there should be some way to verify his emeritus status.
Please note that while this is an academic source, I do not wish to get into questions of academic standards. These days I’m more comfortable with legal standards of proof. You might say that I present Dr. Lieberman as an expert witness.
2. Due to other strong reviews, Conflict Unraveled is widely available in public and university libraries. A WorldCat search reveals that it’s currently held in 207 libraries. It’s out and being used by the public.
3. Conflict Unraveled is used as a textbook in conflict-related courses ranging from ad hoc groups in homeless shelters to graduate courses in international studies. The material is studied and discussed. Now, college courses do not normally list textbooks in course catalogs, so this information would not appear on the web. I am open to suggestions as to how this might be verified.
4. The model serves a larger purpose by furthering the work of others in the field. One of the uses of the continuum is that it allows fresh ways to use old material.
From my perspective, some of the great conflict tacticians were two of the strategists behind some of Dr. Martin Luther King’s non-violent campaigns, Diane Nash and the Rev. James Bevel. Dr. King’s non-violent movement is today seen more as a historic event, rather than a source of practical problem-solving. This model offers a new way of looking at such tactics, so they can be applied in everyday settings. Conflict Unraveled fits the tactics of Bevel and Nash into the continuum to illuminate those tactics. It presents new, practical ways that everyday people can make use of brilliant tactics of the past. This element can be verified by Dr. Lieberman's review. Amedea (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
No reference to establish notability has been found above by any of us. Article fails notability as per nomination. Widefox (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Since past reviews aren't available on the magazine's website, isn't it a simple matter to ask them to verify? Amedea (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


The article now has been changed so that my name is in a subhead, with a spam tag directly below. This gives an impression that I made the change, and that for disreputable reasons.

Widefox, there was an earlier comment that you were using tags in a punitive manner. This is starting to cross into cyber-bullying. Perhaps it's best that you recuse yourself from this discussion.

Whether the article stays or goes, the issues can't be that difficult to sort out. Amedea (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was (and largely still is) about a theory in a self-published book WP:ARTSPAM , so the guideline says it can be speedy deleted. It may help to checkout WP:VERIFY, and WP:OWN about who is allowed to edit. Please refrain from Ad hominem attacks on me, this may help WP:NPA. Widefox (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Widefox, your behavior here is really beginning to cross the line. Have you been telling Amedea that she cannot edit particular articles? Are you continuing to do so? Your grasp of policy is questionable. Blatant advertising qualifies for speedy deletion, like "BUY EXTENZENOW YOU BE BIGGER WE PROMISE NO SCAM." Anything questionable has to go through the deletion process. WP:V and WP:OWN have no bearing on your dispute with Amedea. WP:COI advises caution when editing; it is not a prohibition. The article is under discussion for deletion. Seeing as you think it should be deleted, it is difficult to assume good faith when you edit the article while the discussion is going on. Other editors are trying to improve the article such that it no longer warrants deletion. I think they have a snowball's chance in hell, but that doesn't mean that you are empowered to speak for the community and disrupt their efforts. RJC Contribs 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
RJC - I agree speedy deletion is not warranted - my comment above is incorrect. I stand by everything else... My mention of WP:OWN is actually in reply to me being asked to "recuse yourself from this discussion". Reading my comment the way I intended is the exact opposite of preventing anyone from editing. OK, now show me where I've said Amedea should not edit particular articles! I have correctly stated COI all along. I would appreciate you correct those assertion above with your findings. Pointing out that sources are the solution is not disruption but crucial for notability, pertinent to nomination. As for WP:AGF, my imprecise language has drawn your comment, no need to question my grasp thank you. Widefox (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Well, I have no idea if Mr. Rawland’s article has the proverbial snowball’s chance. I’m still murky on Knowledge (XXG) protocols, although I do have a different approach I'd like to try.

But apart from all that, this essentially became a real life experiment on dealing with cyber-bullying.

There’s a real concern about the ability of an anonymous user to impugn a professional reputation, even in an international setting. Some of my colleague’s are involved in the fight over cyber-bullying, and were following as this played out. After all, clean outcomes are scarce. As tags were flying, this became a chance to test technique.

So my colleagues have been watching as I was painted increasingly as a self-serving climber. Not the most comfortable feeling. Perhaps the single weirdest move was when the discussion history was altered on the article page, removing my requests for guidance. Now, I have no idea what’s allowable in the Knowledge (XXG) world, but for an outsider that was pretty unsettling.

Some of the private advice was for me to tuck and run, but that didn’t seem quite decent. Basically I tried textbook technique in the cyber-world. Instead of an exhausting mess, the whole thing deflated pretty quickly. Now we can get back to the boring work of seeing if Mr. Rawland’s article fits.

RJC, as soon as it was clear that a line had been crossed, you asserted yourself promptly. That was clean and clear, very well handled.

Ariconte, thank you for stepping forward. You were experimenting and problem-solving in an unpleasant atmosphere. That takes nerve, and few people would have done it. Perhaps we’ll sort out that article yet.

Meanwhile it's been a terrific learning experience. Thank you. Let’s see about getting some good from all this. Amedea (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusations from Amedea noted at Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest/Noticeboard . No advancement of secondary sources to establish notability WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, back to secondary sources.

Please to to Amazon.com and find Going Home without Going Crazy, from New Harbinger Publications. Use the Look inside feature to bring up pages 32 & 33. There's the conflict continuum. At the bottom of page 33 it's sourced to Conflict Unraveled.

Looking over the guidelines, I believe this meets the definition of a secondary source from an established publisher. The guidelines don't mention different authors, but specify sequential use.

Since New Harbinger saw fit to bring this model to their audience as well, I believe this meets the standard for notability. On page 2 you can see that an editor approached me with the commission.

I believe this covers the deletion concerns. Please let me know if this works. Amedea (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not enough for a book to have been cited somewhere. The relevant guidelines for Conflict Unraveled are WP:BOOK and WP:GNG. Citations count as trivial or incidental coverage. It was my impression that the article was moving in a different direction. The specific theory of conflict continuum in Conflict Unraveled fails our notability criteria. An article on conflict continuum theories is unlikely to be notable, but has a higher chance. RJC Contribs 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I thought we'd agreed that the article would involve other models. A termination point was that Mr. Rawland's existing article had no source that met Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Elise Boulding has a conflict continuum, and she has a biographical Knowledge (XXG) article. J. W. Keltner has a continuum, briefly described here: http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/conflict/BKeyelements2_interdependence.htm . Christopher Moore also has a continuum. Boudling's work is used in peace studies, both Keltner & Moore's models are focused on mediation. Amedea (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought the same. That's why I was surprised to see a remark that Conflict Unraveled had been cited somewhere. RJC Contribs 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


The difficulty of online communication. Let's try it again; still not sure if the plan meets Wiki guidelines.
The article would be about several continuum models. Bound to find online sources for at least Boudling and Keltner.
However, the sections from Mr. Rawland's original article need an online source. Conflict Unraveled is out. However, the same full continuum is laid out in Going Home w/o Going Crazy, pages 32 & 33. Page 33 shows the source as Conflict Unraveled, which makes the Going Home book a secondary source. I think that meets the guidelines, but even the guidelines say it gets confusing.
Going Home is from New Harbinger, an established press, and the pages are viewable on Amazon.
Meanwhile, is there some other completely separate topic that would disqualify the article? BTW, I have no intention of making direct changes, and would only write under the supervision of an editor. I want to stay far away from any question of conflict of interest. Amedea (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasanova Gulhar Ibrahim qizi (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)

Unreferenced BLP; PROD:BLP tag removed jsfouche ☽☾ talk 19:19, 14 November 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, 21 November 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) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shilajit.  Sandstein  07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mumijo (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)

Entry is for supposed miracle cure that has great scientific back-up, but also says it is unknown if the substance is "biological" or "geological". Most Google hits lead to snake oil sellers. Bricology (talk) 08:00, 21 November 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) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to shilajit, that's the proper article on the topic and the more widely used word. 1840 results on Google books for shilajit. Silverseren 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was asked to join, but I know little - it is a traditional medicine with variable composition and uncertain effects. It is widely known in and around the area of the former Soviet Union, and seems like one class of substances with no clear separation within it. Thus for the sake of keeping the topic away from hype, merging is good. There is no question about deletion of the topic, it is clearly notable (say, there is an article on it in Great Soviet Encyclopedia). As to the article name, all proposals are just awkward transliterations anyway. Shilajit seems more common and less prone to variations than mo(u)mi(e/jo/yo/etc.) Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Any volunteers? If you think it should be merged and are willing to take the time to do that, please volunteer (or merge it) now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Wilson (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 professional athlete Eucberar (talk) 11:11, 21 November 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) 00:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I really hope that those calling to keep didn't simply look at the references, see ESPN and yahoo.com and declare "well golly, good enough." Because if one actually, y'know, clicks on the ESPN one or the yahoo.com one, one sees they are just statistical rundowns, ones that exist for pretty much every athlete. That plus the razorbacks.com press release are not eve remotely enough for the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment don't sweat it--if an inclusionist like me doesn't want a piece of this, it's gonna get deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I said short. , are certainly independent non-trivial coverage. may be a SPS, I can't tell but it looks fairly good. is an interview and sources like: add a tiny bit. If the hogdb site is a RS and not self-published, we are above the WP:N guideline. So close enough for a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sources not really up to scratch, per Tarc. Otherwise, fails notability.--Korruski 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Religious views on masturbation#Judaism.  Sandstein  07:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sperm in vain (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 have performed a google search on all three bolded topic names Sperm in vain, Semen in vain, Seed in vain, and found nothing that persuades me that this is a notable or verifiable topic.The article is unreferenced and appears to me to be original research or synthesised original research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To Ultrabalastic: The topic describes and explains a position in Jewish law that is its main base and that is why it's needed because it is a major point in Jewish law relating to male sexuality, it is not concerned with what "appears" to you personally. To Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle: If it is part of Jewish law then it is needed, for you to decide it on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no basis at all to delete. IZAK (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try not to be silly. You are bringing irrelevant rhetoric to bear on this. Stick to the point at hand, pun intended. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
To Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle: You may have "looked" but you obviously did not "see" let alone "comprehend" or perhaps you were "careless" and chose to "ignore" -- whatever the case may be, like in any search, you obviously did not winnow the wheat from the chaff in your Google search. Forget blogs, there are many reliable sites that are very clear and give the information, such as these books, academic sources and known organizations cited:
  1. The Jewish Law Annual, Volume 14 (By The Institute of Jewish Law, Boston University School of Law);
  2. H-Net Humanities and Social Sciences;
  3. The Journal of Halacha: Artificial Insemination;
  4. Aish.com: Spirituality: My personal struggles with homosexuality;
  5. The Jewish Press: Fertility and Pregnancy;
  6. Wiley Online Libarary: Kosher medicine and medicalized halacha: An exploration of triadic relations among Israeli rabbis, doctors, and infertility patients;
  7. The Jewish Law Annual, VOL XIV: HALAKHIC ALTERNATIVES IN IVF-PREGNANCIES: A SURVEY;
  8. American Reform responsa: Collected responsa of the Central Conference of American Rabbis;
  9. yoatzot.org: Hotza'at Zera Levatalah;
  10. jewishwomenshealth.org: Expulsion of Semen (Hotza'at Zera Levatalah);
  11. briskodesh.org: Shmiras Habris.

So all these, and there are others, if you had looked for them, are the WP:RS that can and should be brought into this topic and into the article. IZAK (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IZAK - Those are great finds. YOu might want to try adding the info to Religious_views_on_masturbation#Judaism and Religious_response_to_ART#Judaism. Joe407 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I imagine the irony of this is lost on you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article improved - Consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazia Iqbal (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)

Unreferenced BLP, thus all claims in the article about the BLP are unverified. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I found and added a couple of references, however reliable sources are not likely to be in English. Edgepedia (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If there are any cites in another language they may well still be aceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: At the time I created this article, it was simply a translation from the French article (which still isn't referenced). So it may be necessary to find French sources for some parts of the article. Owen (talk) 19:52, 15 November 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) 00:33, 22 November 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) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gryba (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 claim to notability. This article can be one of two things;

  1. A disambiguation page for people with the last name Gryba
  2. An article explaining the meaning behind and notability of the last name Gryba.

For (1) to be valid, multiple notable people with the last name Gryba must be around. So far I can see evidence of one. This means that, should this be the rationale behind page creation, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For (2) to be valid, multiple, reliable, independent sources must be shown covering it. So far I can see a variety of unreliable sources, but nothing that would be accepted. As such, if this is the reasoning used, the article fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 15 November 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) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, this page informs people of the surname and it is backed by references
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) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Travis Jeppesen. There's not much here, either interest or content of the article, no third-party refs, so I'll use a little admin discretion. - KrakatoaKatie 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Victims (novel) (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-tagged for two years, it's not Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:24, 22 November 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) 00:22, 29 November 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  06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources, no references. Fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Twisted Spoon Press (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)

NN, user's edits consist of puff-pieces about friends, this seems same Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:28, 22 November 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) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Article had been deleted by expired PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I am the article's primary author. It is my belief that this company meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines as it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. These include those used as references in the article itself, such as the recycling industry periodicals Scrap Magazine and Recycling Today. The company is also extensively covered in the publications of the Bureau of International Recycling and Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. Indextypes (talk) 05:54, 22 November 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) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Industry periodicals are usually not sufficient to prove notability, in my view, since they are rarely entirely reliable and independent. I'm not seeing any sign of extensive coverage. Indeed, a number of the cites in this article appear to be based primarily on press releases (bir.org and some of the 'recycling today' ones) or are simply summaries of industry events/statistics ('scrap beat'). More than half of them are from the same source (recycling today), which is ok, but tends to speak against a decent breadth of independent coverage. The isri one seems to only mention the company in passing as part of a list of names. Overall, I just don't see that it's enough to establish notability or importance.--Korruski 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree fully with Korruski. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 07:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarcobatus Flat (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)

One of over 200,000 USGS HUCs that are not all notable. Major watersheds and the like can be notable but the little features that are not well know do not need an article. This one simply does not meet the notability guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 22 November 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) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cactus Flat (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)

One of over 200,000 USGS HUCs that are not all notable. Major watersheds and the like can be notable but the little features that are not well know do not need an article. This one simply does not meet the notability guidelines. I did consider merging some of this into the articles on the Nellis range, but there is nothing to really merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 22 November 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) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORP, no third-party sources other than promotional content. KrakatoaKatie 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

R.A. Gapuz Review Center (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 review center, majority of its content was copied directly from Philippine_Nursing_Licensure_Exam#June_2006_examination_controversy — JL 09 contribs    10:22, 22 November 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) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Josh Fernandez Live! (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. probable hoax. fails WP:GNG for not being mentioned in reliable sources. URL of this supposed "internet talk show" is not given to verify existence. Bluemask (talk) 11:26, 22 November 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) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali Sher Hamidullah (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)

One-sided negative WP:BLP on a person who fails WP:BIO. All sources are either US government documents (who are a party in this, not a neutral source), reprints of such documents (the NYTimes), or instances where his name is found in a list of many similar persons (sources like the Brookings institute study). Google reveals no other indepth reliable independent sources with only 69 distinct results outside Knowledge (XXG) and its mirrors. Fram (talk) 11:42, 22 November 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) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have to agree with the delete !voters here. No significant coverage in independent sources. If she get's more coverage later then this article can be recreated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim Cloutier (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 model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 13:07, 22 November 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) 00:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you show tell me where that statement appears in that source? All I can find is "the arbiter of supermodel succession", which essentially says that quite a few of the models have gone on to become supermodels. This does not mean that all the models are important or notable. GDallimore (Talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the current lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject, but without prejudice to allowing the article to be re-created if such sources become available later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. As already said, notability is demonstrated by independent, reliable sources discussing the subject. A friendly six-line "interview" below a pin-up pic doesn't qualify. East of Borschov 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Being an SI cover girl is not in the ballpark of Playmate of the Year for establishing notability, sorry. We don't just fabricate notability policy to support our favored articles. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete If she'd been on the cover, then I might have been inclined to agree with the arguments that being a swimsuit model alone makes her notable. But she wasn't on the cover. If she had, she might have received some independent coverage and we wouldn't be having this discussion! There are also some logically fallacious arguments being made above about the importance of the Swimsuit edition: the fact that some famous people have been models does not logically lead to the conclusion that all swimsuit models are famous or notable. And there is only one even vaguely reliable source provided. the other source, a directory of models, is not an independent source that can support notability since it is probably written by her or her agents. GDallimore (Talk) 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Damaris Lewis (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 model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC) C)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: By what definition is that, Tony? I don't see any guideline explicitly giving a presumption of notability for models in SI, and I'd sure be grateful if you could link to it. Beyond that, the whole underpinning of notability criteria beyond the GNG is that the criteria establish "presumptive" notability, in so far that (for example) someone who plays in the National Hockey League almost certainly has had articles written about him in the mainstream press. Ms. Lewis certainly appears on a lot of modeling sites, Flickr, social media, blogs and the like, but that hasn't translated into any coverage of her in substantial detail on any source, in the year-plus since the issue in which she appeared. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG.  Ravenswing  19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Granted, there aren't many sources on Lewis that I can find after a (lazy) search, but I'd say the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue annually receives so much coverage when it comes out that appearing in it as a model should confer notability, per criteria #1 of WP:ENT. There are few things a model can do that increases their public profile as much as this gig. If the article was filled with extraneous information w/o sourcing, I might have more of an issue, but appearing in the SISI warrants at least a stub IMO, as the article is now.  Mbinebri  01:38, 24 November 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) 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per TtT and Mbinebri. - The Bushranger Return fire 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also... articles on the SISI are often of this variety, offering coverage on several models at a time and establishing notability, as significant coverage guidelines don't require the subject to be the sole focus of the source. A lot of times these articles don't pop up in standard searches, which makes it look like the models don't receive coverage for appearing in SI when they do.  Mbinebri  04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Your example of "this variety" is a very humdrum article at MSNBC. I had thought that MSNBC material was spidered by Google; why would it not pop up in standard searches? Has this person been written up in MSNBC, or anywhere else? -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems unremarkable, and nobody has yet dredged up any infotainment material about her. Still, I await enlightenment by Mbinebri. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Appearing in the SI Swimsuit Issue establishes notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mbinebri writes: Granted, there aren't many sources on Lewis that I can find after a (lazy) search, but I'd say the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue annually receives so much coverage when it comes out that appearing in it as a model should confer notability. ¶ A large percentage of the International Herald Tribune (which I happen often to see) is devoted to fashion and modeling. (Fashion is thus unlike any mere art or science -- it's up there with sports and business.) The IHT is merely the internationally distributed version of the NYT, which is indexed by Google. Google News, which of course indexes not merely the NYT but a great number of infotainment sources, has a grand total of zero (0) hits for Lewis. ¶ I then wondered about this "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue". (I'd never heard of such a thing before encountering it in Knowledge (XXG), but I'll happily admit to ignorance in many areas of human endeavor.) As I've seen mentions of "Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit 2010" etc, I'm not entirely sure of the correct or best-googled variation on "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue". I therefore looked up the very inclusive ' "sports illustrated" swimsuit' in Google News. This search got "about 87" hits. That's not many. And they're a sorry lot. Here are the titles of what happened to be the top three when I looked: "'Jersey Shore' Cast To Present At 2010 'VH1 Divas'", "Tom Brady Should Let Nature Take Its Hairy Course", "Week 48: Brad Paisley, Guy's Guy". So I see no reason for the assertion that there's lots of coverage in the infotainment industry of the "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue", however titled. ¶ Lewis may perhaps become somebody whose accomplishments are discussed somewhere. Were that to happen, she'd merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vogue has a blurb about her. Although the SI swimsuit issues in themselves meet N, I don't think a snap of someone wearing a swimsuit in one of those layouts brings forth a BLP of encyclopedic notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the current lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject, but without prejudice to allowing the article to be re-created if such sources become available later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: per TtT and Mbinebri. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment With some of the press mentioned above, I have expanded the article and it should now pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Arguably just about passes muster with the newly added sources, even though they're only interviews rather than wholly independent reports on her and her modelling. GDallimore (Talk) 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep per GDallimore. The fact that independent journalists have chosen to interview her makes a case for notability but I would like to see more journalistic articles about her. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the greatest of articles but the interviews seem to do just enough to meet WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources - this argument having been made with considerably more substance than the suggestion that the subject is notable for meeting WP:ENT. Mkativerata (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dominique Piek (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 model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 13:10, 22 November 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) 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UC3 (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 all twelve of the faily lax criteria for notability of musicians/ensembles. Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music) One would think their Hooters association would give them a decent amount of press, but it hasn't. Fixer23 (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And in this case there is no information to improve the article with.Fixer23 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Below is some articles published on this group. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Now there's Hooters the restaurant and Hooters the girl band" By REBECCA LOUIE, 27 November 2003, Times Union.
    • "It's a real hoot between the buffet and the beer ; Restaurant chain promotes its girl group" by JOHN PETRICK, 23 November 2003, The Record
    • "UC3 TRIO HOOTERS & HOLLERS" By DAN AQUILANTE, 20 November 2003, New York Post
    • "HOOTERS ADDS 3 SONGBIRDS " by REBECCA LOUIE, 19 November 2003, New York Daily News
    • "Hooters music on tap: restaurant chain signs deal with trio UC3." by Mitchell, Gail, 8 November 2003, Billboard
That's great! Why weren't they included in the article?Fixer23 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Because nobody cares. --Rob (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You need to take your sour attitude somewhere else. This is precisely why your "support" for the deletion of the three articles were not taken seriously. Because you're bitterness with the way you perceive Knowledge (XXG) is transparent, compounded by the fact that you seem not to know the slightest about Knowledge (XXG) policies (however basic they are) and base your edits on your own whims. You have not added anything of use to the three ongoing discussions and have been blurring the matter with tangential arguments.Fixer23 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"Because nobody cares"? Way to assume bad faith! - The Bushranger Return fire 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - On this one I'm undecided about the group's notability. But Duffbeerforme found some sources, probably without much effort, which should have been done by the nominator. The nominator could also place those sources in the article instead of condemning the article because someone else hasn't done it. Meanwhile, this AfD and a related AfD have degenerated into useless arguments about Knowledge (XXG) overall, which has nothing to do with whether a particular article is notable. People are forgetting WP:BEFORE (especially #2, #9) and WP:ATA. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Posting my reply from the other discussion. I did not come across these articles and do not know where this user got them as they do not turn up in multiple google searches, for charting information, general information, awards information etc. (Perhaps they have been collecting sources? And also the fact that all the articles posted by the user are Pay-Per-View doesn't help. Same goes for the other nomination, if I had found coverage I wouldn't have nominated in the first place).Fixer23 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So, I'm curious how much do you have to "pay-per-view" this? --Rob (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Not finding the articles I found does not show a lack of BEFORE #2 as a good faith search of google would not have found them all. Yes I found them without much effort but I used a seperate database (Factive) which is not easily available to all. #9 may have found one and that could have been easily missed. BEFORE may have been done here and I see no reason to believe it was not. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 29 November 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) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two reviews were added since the discussion began. KrakatoaKatie 08:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

PYT (Down with Me) (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)

Uncharted, little more than a tracklisting. Unlikely to ever be expanded. Only "source" is a review from Allmusic which is still not enough to meet even general notability. The article fails WP:NALBUMS as well. Fixer23 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 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) 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Funky Diamonds. If sources are found, more content is added and consensus can be reached, a new article on the album can be created. KrakatoaKatie 07:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever (Funky Diamonds album) (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 album. Group's notability is in question as well. Has not charted, it little more than a tracklisting, fails WP:NALBUMS. Unlikely to ever be expanded. Fixer23 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 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) 00:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Funky Diamonds are probably notable, in that they were signed to a major label, and their article isn't currently at AfD. Per WP:NALBUM, the released albums of a notable band are generally notable, and the article is certainly more detailed than merely a track listing. I'm unable to immediately find any English language reviews but that's unsurprising as the album was apparently only released in Germany and Japan; it would beggar belief that there are absolutely no reliable sources in existence for a second album of a band signed to Sony BMG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That's grounds for keep of the musical group, not an album. The only notable information here (on one member leaving, unsourced by the way) can easily be merged into the artist article, the rest of the information is on differences in album cover art.Fixer23 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ajay Awasthi (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 perfact reference available which prove notability Rbs101 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 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) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 500 Most Influential Muslims (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 is no evidence that this list is itself notable enough for an article though as part of promotion by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre it has been mentioned in a few newspapers. It may be worth mentioning as part of another article but does not meet the WP:NLIST guidelines or WP:IINFO and is based on opinion and not independently verifiable. Raising for discussion rather than PROD as this is a contentious subject. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So I can better understand, we have various subjective lists -- such as award holder in various sports. How do those differ? They are subjective as well, and the rank of someone as the most valuable player in the American League this year, for example, is certainly thought of as encyclopaedic. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Lists of award holders are a poor comparison as the inclusion criteria is objective. Awards are not all notable, awards that support claims of notability of BLPs mostly have their own article (as they are notable in their own right) and there are criteria defined in WP:ATH explaining which awards are considered relevant. This list is not a set of award winners and is not an award, it is a subjective list and in comparison awards are based on clear criteria such as winning competitions, public votes or panel of judges applying predefined criteria. Fæ (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Right -- I agree that a list of MVPs of the American League is objective. The criteria to be an MVP for 2010 in the AL is I would suggest less than objective. It may be that this list is not notable, but I would think we would not measure that on the fact that no article exists, as that begs the question as to whether one could be created. But rather look at the RS coverage. I've just added a half dozen refs to the article, and more exist. BTW -- another issue, raised in a similar list, which I think is a non-issue, but will mention due to the similarity, was whether a copyright vio exists. I think not, but non-lawyers will disagree with me (and who knows, perhaps even a lawyer or two).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The refs you include do not, in my opinion, unambiguously show the list is notable as each article is about a notable person that is on the list rather than about the list itself. Many celebrities may have stayed in a local hotel and this may be mentioned in many newspaper articles over many years, this would still not automatically make the hotel notable as the articles were about the celebrities and the hotel only incidental. Fæ (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've not concluded whether they sufficiently reflect notability. But I wonder if the example isn't a bit different than this reality -- here, we have the 500 list that is the focus of this list mentioned prominently in the very title of many of the articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a specific guideline on top ten type lists of people somewhere that may help (I just cannot remember the shortcut). In the meantime you may wish to continue improving the article and with a few more opinions this discussion itself may clarify the notability status. Fæ (talk) 07:44, 28 November 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) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I am thinking Delete because I can't find evidence that it is notable, just numerous articles where someone mentions "so-and-so has been named one of the 500 Most Influential Muslims". However, it is worth noting that WP:NLIST does not seem to be a good argument here, since it is actually a book, and the book is more than just a list. The first 30 pages seem to be about Islam, and many if not all the people on the list have a few pages written about them. (It is available to view/download online). As far as notability of the book, that is another story. From the article itself: "Every year the Royal Islamic Strategic Center reaches out to people to send their nominations of who they think is qualified to be amongst the 450 individuals." (The writers of the book apparently determine the top 50). So it appears to be a book *about* a subjective list, which *could* still be notable, but doesn't seem to be. --Susan118 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

War on the shore (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 sporting event, only references are from the 2 teams involved. WuhWuzDat 15:12, 22 November 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) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs a rewrite but the subject clearly meets WP:PROF#C5. KrakatoaKatie 07:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Poorly sourced page, WP:BLP concerns raised from WP:BLPN, so bringing here for a community assessment. Procedural nom, no opinion of notabilty expressed by nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: Edson Spencer Chair in Strategic Management - Named chair seems to me to pass WP:prof. (WP:Prof #5) The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Also google scholar seems to indicate sufficient refs and citations. However article could benefit from tidying, referencing and rewrites to avoid possible plagiarism (I think I have removed this last problem) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
  • Delete at this time per WP:BLPDEL, unless the article can be rewritten in a neutral tone with references to reliable sources. Currently, it primarily cites advertising from the subject's employer, and does not adequately cite the subject's named chair appointment or publishing history. I'm certainly open to changing my mind if anyone can rescue the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. GS h-index around 17. I would make this "strong keep" per prof#5 too, but don't see the endowed prof title in the official university pages that I was able to find (here and here), which refer to him simply as "professor". Perhaps some of his papers show the official title? Sounds like proper rewrite would satisfy ⌘macwhiz, yes? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Yeah, I have no problem keeping the article around if the notability is backed up, but not when the article is unsourced (and looks suspiciously like a publisher's press kit...) In fact, I hope this AfD will spur someone to rescue the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time to clean up the article but did want to provide some of the needed references:

You can find the endowed prof. title mentioned here (as well as a long list of both journal and book publications): http://www.csom.umn.edu/faculty-research/faculty.aspx?x500=amarcus). As a secondary source of evidence, here is a Minneapolis Star Tribune article that mentions his title (http://www.startribune.com/business/topworkplaces/96086214.html) and recent conference he spoke at (http://biggreenconference.com/speakers/) that also lists him as the Edson Spencer Chair.

His cv, which also provides a list of his academic appointments, education, and various publications, can be found here: http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/86536.doc .

And here's a link to one of his many interviews on MPR's Morning Edition: http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/features/2005/12/07_extra_marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.70.114 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 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) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andorra. A paragraph and photo would fit nicely into the Andorra article; there's not enough here for this topic to stand alone. KrakatoaKatie 07:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Order of Charlemagne (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 new page, created by an editor in one edit who added that architect Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank declined the award, but I can't find any sources for that or the award itself. Not a single mention for a google search of "Order+of+Charlemagne"+andorra "Order of Charlemagne"+andorra. Fails WP:GNG Bigger digger (talk) 17:21, 22 November 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) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be merged to the Andorra anrticle... but where?? No, I still thinking that this should be as a page dedicated to decorations, even if it's a small one and is not the Order of the Garter... You have evidences that demonstrate that the Order exists... What else do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hate 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)

I can't find any source that verifies that this film is even in production. Google search for "Hate List" Lovato comes up with nothing relevant or reliable. ... discospinster talk 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

non-notable cryptohistory fringe theory, OR, speculation, guesswork, dripping with "we don't know"s and on and on Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:39, 22 November 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) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously sufficient sources, both for the real people and the legend. the actual family should be described first, and the reputed origins second. I think the origins part clearly fringe history, and treating it as such--which does not mean eliminating it. . (I may to some extent disagree with both uncle G and sodabottle about the degree to which the unlikely nature of the material should be made clear, and would retain more of the references than they in order to show it. I consider the lede phrase of the French article-- "Il existerait une branche des Bourbons dite Bourbons des Indes" to improperly indicate that they are a branch of the Bourbons. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that only a few sources do rebut this. Most of the roughly two centuries worth of sources just plain repeat the assertion. The "Criticisms of …" trap is, of course, to do what was done here originally, which you can see. The French Knowledge (XXG) avoids that trap by structuring differently, we do now. It's also worth noting that there is no real dispute (to be found, at any rate) as to the existence of the de Bourbon family in later centuries. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work once again by Uncle G (he linked to this AfD from my talk page, btw). It's tale that has been knocking around for a long time, e.g. see this article from the New York Times in 1886. Without doubt a notable topic. Fences&Windows 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑