Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 13 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nathalie Morin (edit | talk | 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. BLP1E. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article is about a character in a parody of the film Downfall. The parody itself is not notable enough to have its own page, and so a character within it would not be either. Additionally, the "Background" section is directly copied from Hermann Fegelein and no references are used. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

-Background has been removed until references have been established.KakashiBallZ (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)KakashiBallZ

Delete (As PROD creator) — The "Antics" section looks like original research as well, KakashiBallZ. --Mutinus (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burlington, Vermont#Culture and landmarks. T. Canens (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment. Singapore has over eight times the population of Vermont, and the multiple over Burlington, Vermont (which is the scope of this article) is between 25 and 130, depending on how you define the limits of Burlington, so I don't know where the idea that "Singapore is even smaller than Vermont" comes from, and how it is relevant to this discussion. There may (although I doubt it) be a case to be made for keeping this, but this certainly isn't it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not that the buildings themselves need to be notable. This is a list of the tallest in a single city. --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Waldman (edit | talk | 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 clear vanity page - the author is obviously not notable and the page contains no secondary sources - it's been successfully nominated for deletion before and re-created! Delete. --Roscelese

Additional text and references were added with regard to the writer's legal writings and citations thereof. Waldman is a widely published writer of fiction, poetry, and essays, in small presses online and in print,over twenty publications this year alone, as is clear from the references in the Mitchell Waldman article. (Some of his publications have also been verified by Poets and Writers organization as part of their process in adding his writer's listing to their directory -- http://www.pw.org/content/mitchell_waldman). I suggest that based on such references, he is a notable writer. As to his novel, the reviews alone support its merit and notability. There were other reviews which are no longer available on the Internet, unfortunately. While a prior page of the same name was previously deleted, Waldman's publications have increased greatly since that prior deletion. Thus, I propose that the page be retained. LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
I don't think you understand - imagine what the article would look like after removing all the stuff with no secondary source, and ask yourself if the notability guidelines support the existence of a page for a guy just because he's listed on a website and wrote two articles. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Roscelese (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Note also that LitReviewer2 is the article creator, and either the subject himself or a close friend of the subject. Roscelese (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. The writer's work has appeared in numerous literary journals online. (Are these not independent sources indicating notability?) The addition of five sources where his legal articles have been cited as authority are significant. (Are these not secondary sources, either?) LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
No, dude, the magazine that published your work is not a secondary source as to its notability. As I said, I'll grant that the legal citations are third-party, but I don't think there needs to be a Knowledge (XXG) page for every guy who wrote two legal articles. Roscelese (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Sounds like somebody has an axe to grind. "The magazine"? -- there was more than one magazine publishing the writer's work, quite a few actually. And he has written many more than two legal articles. Two were cited as examples. LitReviewer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
I found this article because I was searching on a particular grammar error that you made in writing it, Mr. Special Snowflake Writer, and I nominated it for deletion because (unlike films, sports) it is a category in which I feel I am qualified to judge notability. Please provide evidence of your notability from reliable secondary sources. Roscelese (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(In case you have an allergy to the notability guidelines, I'll quote for you from the link: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.") Roscelese (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really enjoying the editor's tone in these comments. She should be aware that comments like these are available to the public and may, in some instances, be considered libelous. In any case, the editor's tone aside, I have expanded the section on the writer's legal writings and other sources referring to such writings. Hopefully this will suffice to satisfy the notability issues. If not, more references can be added. LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)--LitReviewer2 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
loooooooool "this person is not notable" = libel Roscelese (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Would be nice if you could remain WP:CIVIL about it please. Bigger digger (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I rather think that "I could sue you for libel" is much less civil than "that's ridiculous"...but enough of this tangent. Roscelese (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I made no legal threats, nor am I being uncivil. I am just saying these comments are starting to sound very personal and can affect the writer's reputation (what is "Mr. Special Snowflake Writer"? Is that kind of language really called for in objective criticism?) You have to admit that the Notability standards are very vague and subjective. Citation in court opinions and legal documents to the writer's papers do not seem unnotable. LitReviewer2 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - A successful start to an AfD, loads of words but no !votes and an unsigned nomination! No sources show WP:Notability is indicated in WP:Reliable sources. LitReviewer2, if you could please show just 2 reliable sources that show how this author passes WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR (and I suggest you read those), then I can consider changing my !vote. I don't have time to look at all 58 refs, but my random sampling include copies of his stories, lots of "articles" that mention his contribution to anthologies, and 200-page pdfs that mention his name once. And post edit conflict, please carefully read WP:LEGAL.Bigger digger (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
And actually, you should be able to show WP:AUTH #1 if he is cited in legal papers - is there a report or paper that analyses what he wrote and how useful it is? At the moment I don't know if all those refs you've tagged on the end of one sentence should be impressive or not. Bigger digger (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep-- The writer's legal articles on Computers and the Internet and on Expectation of Privacy in Internet Communications are unique articles gathering and analyzing applicable collections of legal case law and statutes pertaining to these subjects; thus their citation in many other legal articles and court opinions shows their significance as original legal documents. This alone, along with the writer's other original fiction, poetry, and essays, which have been widely published and positively reviewed, and his editorial work, would indicate his notability as a writer and editor of creative as well as legal works. --LitReviewer2 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from Roscelese:"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.", I'm not certain why adding 28 legal references (including court opinions) referring to the writer's work is not considered as meeting the requirement that "there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." --LitReviewer2 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As was stated above, Trivial coverage (mere mentions of someone's name or citations to a paper) do not help to establish notability. Do you have any independently written sources that provide biographical information? - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing in the Notability guidelines about the number of sources as making a topic significant despite the so-called "trivial" nature of such references. It would seem that the sheer number of references to a topic or article would, at some point, make the coverage "significant" and notable, given the amount of attention that is being bestowed on the subject, especially with regard to legal material cited by courts of law, law review articles and government sources, which is the case with the references made to the writer's work here. Such references acknowledge the writer's work in both federal and state documents, legal research, and court opinions (a big step for "significance," in the legal world). Maybe this is not the norm with regard to normal articles, but perhaps it is a little different with legal works. --173.85.166.41 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is User:LitReviewer2. Roscelese (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not trying to be deceptive in forgetting to sign in.--LitReviewer2 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the article provides more than 70 references, they do not confirm notability. The quoted reviews of the novel are all from blogs and such, not from WP:Reliable Sources. A search for mainstream articles about the author or his novel finds nothing. A search for the publisher of the novel, Writers Club Press, oddly does not find a publishers website; instead, the primary Google hit for this search is the self-publishing company iUniverse, suggesting that his novel may be self-published. For all these reasons, he fails to meet the standards set at WP:AUTHOR. Writing legal articles would promote notability only under the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, which do not seem to apply to this person. --MelanieN (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
So if you write legal articles but you're not an "academic" you can't be notable? There's something wrong with this. Maybe you need a new rule, or some sort of exceptions. In any case the rote application of "Rules" seems to have taken all reasonableness of the applicators of such rules entirely out of this process. I understand you need to have SOME rules, but there needs to be some discretionary evaluation here involving sense and reason.I'm befuddled by the last comment. Apparently the legal sources thought the articles by the author referred to were notable or they would not have mentioned them. Courts and legal scholars don't just cite legal references for no reason. And what of all the subject's other creative writings, besides the "self-published" work? Granted they are not secondary sources, but they are evidence of his creative output which has been recognized by publication by the journals in which they have appeared. This machine-like application of rules really is amazing.--LitReviewer2 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to be an "academic" as such to apply the standards of WP:ACADEMIC; that guideline is a way of evaluating people who may have made a significant contribution to their field, but have not gotten written about in WP:Reliable sources enough for the usual notability requirements. That guideline is to go to Google Scholar and look for articles written by the person, and see how often they have been cited by others. An occasional citation here and there isn't going to demonstrate a significant contribution to the field; we look for people who get cited MANY times. I evaluated Mr. Waldman - or let's face it, you - by that standard also, to give you a second chance at notability - to see if you might meet that standard even if you didn't meet WP:AUTHOR - but no. As for WP:AUTHOR guidelines, merely getting stuff published does not meet the notability guideline; the stuff you write has to be taken independent note of by reliable sources, particularly by published (as opposed to online) sources. Finally, the general consensus here is that self-published books are almost never accepted as a sign of notability. Please don't take the comments here as putting you down, or finding your work to be bad; that's not what it is about at all. This is about fulfilling Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria as "notable" - which admittedly may sometime exclude a person who is a brilliant writer, or is well known in a given locality or field. Knowledge (XXG) is an international encyclopedia, and it has to have standards. And contrary to your statement above, the notability standard is not "very vague and subjective" - it is very specific and objective, namely, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All those terms are carefully defined at WP:NOTABILITY. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to MelanieN's statement, the book reviews are not from "blogs" but, oddly from book review sites, eg, Bookreview.com, Jandy's Reading Room... Not sure where the "blogs and such" idea came from. --LitReviewer2 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can get their review put up on Bookreview.com, just as anyone can make a site on Angelfire and review it there. Please try harder next time. Roscelese (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdullah Kadwani (edit | talk | 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 (or at least non-proven notability), mostly self-referenced, prone to puffery. This reads like an autobio. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus for Meagan McKinney, teh rest will be deleted. Courcelles 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

These are unsourced/poorly sourced biographies of living people. Any sources actually on the articles point to publisher websites, personal websites, or otherwise unreliable sources. The authors in question write category romance books; their novels are available in stores for only 1 month and then removed from shelves. I can find no reviews of these works (except at www.rtbookreviews, but they review ALL romance novels published) and no independent coverage of the careers or personal lives of the authors. Therefore, I think they fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR and should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Meagan McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kim Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lilian Peake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gloria Bevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment Can we please separate out these AFDs. Peake and Bevan are far more established than the others; Peake is likely notable, as she's in many libraries, and was quite an innovator for romance in her day. Admitted COI: I love her books! Vrivers (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Close and list separately. There's no reason to think that these articles should stand or fall together, so any proper examination of notability needs separate examination for each subject. This will be next to impossible to do in a combined discussion as editors will come up with different combinations of which ones to keep and which to delete, making it next to impossible for the poor closing admin to evaluate consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete for Ambrose; others should be renominated separately. Ambrose does not meet WP:AUTHOR. References provided are not WP:Reliable sources, and none are found at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to the request for decoupling - this is the third time I've nominated these types of authors in a group and the first time there's been any pushback. They all meet the same criteria - authors who wrote primarily category romance books and who do not seem to meet wP:AUTHOR - no significant reviews of their works, no major awards won, no independent analysis of the works or coverage of the author to justify an article. Having written a lot of books is not one of the criteria for inclusion. I would remove an author from the list if any independent, reliable sources could be brought forward for that author. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Taking them one at a time:

  • Meagan McKinney: Keep Numerous references are found at Google News (for example ). Some are behing paywalls and can't be evaluated - but their mere existence suggests notability.
  • Kim Lawrence: Delete Nothing found. .
  • Lillian Peake: Weak delete Hard to evaluate since she wrote decades ago - if she was notable then she is notable now, but it's hard to prove. Bloggers do comment about her, but I can't find anything that would count as a reliable source.
  • Gloria Bevan: Weak delete Same problem - not a current author so hard to find anything. A lot of blogger interest but again nothing reliable.
  • I wouldn't be surprised if both Peake and Bevan are notable within their genre, but I can't prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not appear to be consensus at this point in time for any of the options discussed, including keep, delete, merge. Further merge discussions may take place as an editorial option, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina (edit | talk | 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've nominated this page for deletion as very little of it is Reliable Source or notable. That which is may not even be encyclopedic enough for a footnote. What little else is leftover belongs in various other Katrina, organization or BLP articles.

Nothing here, either individually or in the aggregate, justifies an article. The whole thing is, at best, what? Eight quotes or so? 99.141.241.60 (talk) (completed by Paul B (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

  • Keep. This has a dreadful title. It should be something like Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution. However there has been quite extensive discussion of this topic from various sources, and they are discussed in reliable sources. In fact most of this is sourced to notable books on the Katrina phenomenon. Most of the other sourcing is from newspapers, so I see little wrong with most of the sourcing. The article was created as a spin-off from the main Katrina article, as the topic was overweighting the main article. Delting it will just burden the main article again. Such spin-offs are normal when sections become overlong. Paul B (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Delete. - An article in search of a title, or bits of trivially notable mutterings in search of a storage draw? It'll be interesting to see how this progresses but pared down the one or two utterances that remain could easily be absorbed into more relevant articles.99.141.241.60 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Except Knowledge (XXG) doesn't define trivia, all reference works are bits of trivia strung together into a narrative. Calling something "trivia" is just a way of saying, "I don't like it." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I do recognize the notability of some of the quotes, I merely disagreed with the need for a full article, hence my characterization as "trivially notable". I've changed my position to Merge and entered it below. Note that my ip has changed from 99...60 to this new one -->99.142.13.144 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into Divine retribution. I think it is important to place these claims in their proper context. Most (if not all) calamitous events and natural disasters are seen as a form of Divine retribution by those who see the world through religious eyes. Katrina was hardly unique in this. Discussed out of context, in an article focused specifically on Katrina, we give the claims and those who made them undue weight... however, if summarized and discussed in a proper context (as modern examples of the concept of divine retribution) that problem is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, having a whole section on Katrina in the Divine retribution article would be undue weight. It's a miniscule aspect of the the general topic, which should cover the whole concept, its origins (Book of Job), theology and important historical instances. I think it would be like merging an article on a small Spanish village into Europe. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about giving this a whole section? I said we should summarize. The claims we are discussing are note worthy modern examples of the religious belief in Divine retribution... and as such I think they are most appropriately mentioned in the article about the belief in Divine retribution. However, I would certainly agree that we don't need an entire section devoted to these examples. We could probably cover them in a few short sentences. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Then it seems to me that what you are proposing is not really merging at all, but a de facto deletion with a brief mention in an article on a much much larger topic. The question here is whether the Katrina debate is worthy of a separate article (which might be linked to from a brief mention in the main articles). In this respect it's no different from the question whether the imaginary small Spanish village deserves its own article or not. That should be determined on its merits, but if a merger is deemed appropriate it would be to the "next level" (into the article on the local region or whatever). Paul B (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well... I don't want to get into a debate over the meaning of the term "merge". You seem to understand what I am talking about. I call what I am talking about a merger... if you want to call it something else, fine. My point is simply that I think the best place to discuss these claims is in the Divine retribution article, and I don't think they belong in an article focused exclusively on Katrina. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep—adequately sourced. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina - It blends seamlessly with the second paragraph to be exact. It's really quite perfect. Note that my ip has changed - I am the 99.X ip from above.....99.142.13.144 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    That is a section in an article on the political effects. How are these political effects? bd2412 T 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Seems to be our exact article here on AFD already, perfectly appropriate: "Even more fanciful speculation asserted the hurricane was divine retribution for any of a number of provocations, including politically issues such as the War in Iraq, (most famously by New Orleans' own mayor Ray Nagin in a 2006 MLK day speech), and U.S. pressure for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; and domestic issues such as abortion, and tolerance for homosexuality."99.142.13.144 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    You are conflating the speculated cause with the actual effect. In this case, the event, the hurricane was the stimulus that lead to the socal effect, which was the tendency of people to assert divine retribution after the fact. This is not a political effect unless it can further be shown to have had an effect on voting behavior or public policy. bd2412 T 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not "conflating" anything. I simply pointed out that the entire article under AfD discussion here is contained within the section so perfectly titled, Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina The roughly 8 or so quotes could also find themselves a home in one of the 2 or 3 other merge suggestions above. I simply pointed out that the article's contents were already completely covered in the encyclopedia. 99.142.13.144 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    The section may be "perfectly titled", but it is in the wrong article. bd2412 T 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    It's also identical coverage in every way, only more concise. This fact underscores how unnecessary this free standing and poorly titled article really is. Merge, and I now agree not delete, seems the only rational encyclopedic answer.99.142.13.144 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete content fork and undue weight, essentially a listing of trivial ravings from the weakminded. It would be hard to find any major disaster globally (AKA "acts of God") that is not described as caused by God as a punishment (for liberal attitudes to gays, for giving away land to ones "enemies," for failing to enforce religious laws, etc...) A certain subset of the human population likes to ascribe agency to natural disasters, and some others seek the public attention of such moments to broadcast propaganda about their causes. There is nothing that makes this commonplace behavior unusual, special, or particularly notable in the case of Katrina. If some of these religious and political figures utterances on this matter are notable, then it will be mentioned on their biographical pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename to Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution. The phenomenon of multiple notable people characterizing Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution, for wildly varying reasons, is notable. If we end up with "as divine retribution" pages for other disasters, that's okay. --Alynna (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If kept, prefer Alynna's title TheGrappler (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Alynna, the logic in the case of the article, either under this name or the name you suggested, would be that there should also be articles on 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as divine retribution, 2003 Bam earthquake as divine retribution, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and ensuing tsunami as divine retribution, 2010 Pakistan floods as divine retribution, The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 as divine retribution. Those are ones just off the top of my head that i know would meet this criteria. You would find it very difficult to find a disaster with 100s of casualties that does not have these facile "god is punishing us" statements. It's not independently notable in any instance that I'm aware of (even the Krakatoa eruption, which led to the first Islamic-based resistance to dutch rule and some think was the forerunner of later Islamist militancy in Indonesia, shouldn't be handled that way; it should be handled in the relevant history articles).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • There is absolutely nothing wrong with such articles, if there has been significant debate that the 2003 Bam earthquake, or any of these other events, have been instances of divine retribution. While I'm sure you can find someone who has made such claims, the fact is that some events produce significant claims of this sort, and others do not. Alynna rightly says that there would be nothing wrong with such articles if there were demonstrably notable claims along these lines. It's the same with conspiracy theories. Moon landing hoax and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are notable. Obama is an alien and South pole discovery hoax are not. It's all about notability. By your logic we should have no articles on notable conspiracy theories because that somehow would allow articles on non-notable ones to abound. But that's exactly why we have notability rules. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Multiple sources in all those cases. Also lots of sources also support such gems as Death of Ariel Sharon as divine retribution (could write dozens, if not hundreds, of such articles about deceased people, particularly politicians and religious leaders). The point is -- this is trivia. A little bit in Katrina article to the effect that "some people said it was God's work because of teh geyz, teh godlessness, the this, the that" and be done with it. This just adds to the umaintainable clutter. The first section calls it a failure to support Israel and goes on at great length. The second section quotes Al Qaeda (every time anything bad happens to one of their enemies they call it god's will). What a mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Last time I looked Ariel Sharon was still alive. Sort of. If Sharon's stroke had produced lengthy discussion rather than a few ad hoc comments then we might well have such an article. Regarding the notable conspiracy theories, there are multiple sources in this case too. As for the content, the two significant parts here are the "gays-abortion" argument, typically coming from the usual suspects within America (plus one stray German) and the "abandoning Israel" argument, which is pretty much distinctive to this event. They make it notable, IMO. But once that threshold has been passed it is appropriate to include other views, and the obvious counter-arguments. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
            • The man's a vegetable. I remember all the gleeful "god has struck him down" bullshit from various quarters when he had his stroke. At any rate, you can't be reasoned with, so i'll leave it alone.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
              • Really. "you can't be reasoned with" means I continue to disagree with you. I could as easily say that you can't be reasoned with because you have the effrontery to continue to disagree with me. Not helpful. Katrina, for whatever reason, is distinctive precisely because it has brought out wider scholarly discussion of this concept, which other distasters have not. I actually looked up "9/11" and "divine punishment" an kept getting references to Katrina . Paul B (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, that you do a google search and you think it "proves" something can't be helped. All of those examples have attracted lengthy consideration in this vein. Let's take 9/11. God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.-- Jerry Falwell. The deadly events of 9/11 were direct outpourings of divine retribution. -- Fred Phelps. This was God's wrath -- Osama bin laden. In this book, you're looking at, on the one side, the religious right, who sees 9/11 as divine retribution against the United States for sins like being too permissive to homosexuals, and on the other side, on the left, you have 9/11 as this conspiracy that was committed by the United States government against its own people. -- Matt Taibbi, summarizing his book The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire. The Hijackers and the American evangelists agreed that god was angry at america. . Whole book on the subject Where was God on Sept. 11. . Etc. Etc. If one goes to a proper research library, you will find extended commentary on this type of discourse going back 100s of years. Do you know what a Jeremiad is?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a "proper research library" would cover such things suggests that they are amenable to encyclopedic treatment. We do, after all, mention Falwell's response in Reactions to the September 11 attacks. bd2412 T 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Now you are just gong round in circles. My point, which you have spectacularly missed, was that the Katrina event appeared in almost half of the links even though it was not even in the search terms. We all know that this phenomenon is linked to a more general one. Shakespeare is linked to the wider subject of English literature. Louis XIV in linked to the wider subject of Absolute Monarchy (and French history, and many other subjects). The fact that there is wider phenomenon of "sightings of aliens" does not mean that we shouldn't have articles articles on Roswell, or less well known "sightings" such as Berwyn Mountain UFO incident, Rendlesham Forest incident, and many many others. This is the point you don't seem to get. If an article on 9/11 and this discourse were to be created it would have to be addressed on its own merits. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete -- this should be mentioned in the main article with one or two examples. Making it an exhaustive list doesn't add encyclopedic value, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Church Demographics (edit | talk | 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 had originally deleted this article after it was proposed for deletion which was uncontested for 7 days. But the article's creator requested its restoration on my talk page. I still feel that the article doesn't merit inclusion; there's already a demographics article and this article doesn't distinguish itself from it sufficiently. I find no significant coverage of the term "church demographics" by reliable sources. I suspect that this article is really an attempt to advertise the two web sites that appear in the article, as the author has previously included those sites as inappropriate inline external links at the church planting article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete All the article is saying is that churches can use demographics. This is true. They have been doing this since the time of Saint Paul. However it does not seem to be a notable topic, unless sources saying something about the topic are provided. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, as unsourced, spam, promo, WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as the one who prodded it. Unsourced. Falcon8765 22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't rush to delete this - this article could go two ways. Firstly, demographics of church organizations are a noteworthy topic of discussion - e.g. different denominations have different racial breakdowns in their congregations, and also different age segmentation (and indeed number of children born to their congregants). This Time Magazine article examines one aspect of denominational demographics, changes in racial breakdown of Protestant megachurch congregations in the USA, but the issue is clearly wider. I am sure that specialist academic literature is available on at least the basic facts e.g. differences in denominational affiliations between ethnic groups in the US. A second way this article could be developed (possibly complementary) is the active use of demographic targeting - I recall reading a Time or Newsweek article on this somewhere, but a good sense of what's available can be found by searching the net for e.g. "Hispanic church outreach". I know the two links added by the original author are not necessarily done in the manner you would hope a mature and experienced editor would, but let's cut the newbies some slack - this is better than sticking the links in the external links of other articles. Calling it "spamming" isn't helpful - if this were a spammer for their own website, why also include the link for a competing service? The fact that multiple websites exist selling demographic information to churches is the kind of indication that this is worth writing about, surely? Just better than this, preferably :) Give this one some time and see if anyone wants to rescue it, rather than snowballing the deletion through; I can't be the only one who can see potential in this topic surely? TheGrappler (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the site links were added to another article, though in the middle of the article rather than in an external links section. Tomorrow will be the full 7 days so it would be late for a snowball deletion anyway. If in the future you or anyone else can find evidence that this topic has had coverage, then I'm sure it can be recreated without falling afoul of G4. -- Atama頭 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have made myself clearer - when they were added as external links to the other article it verged on spam, but I was trying to say that I suspect even there it was intended in the correct spirit (newbies often fall afoul of external links, and then get accused of spamming, which may be a harsh verdict) and on this article it's a little clearer that they're not spam (even if they wouldn't be present in the final version). This isn't my specialty area but I am quite certain that (a) the topic has received substantial media and academic coverage, and (b) (as the original editor was writing) there's a small slice of the economy that's devoted to actually analysing this stuff. TheGrappler (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We still don't have the significant, independent coverage required. Courcelles 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Marta Gottfried Wiley (edit | talk | 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. No independent references to be found that denote notability. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Independent references have been added. Wendyful04 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. This page has been moved to Marta Wiley since its nomination. If the outcome of this discussion is "delete" please delete both pages. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 09:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Name was changed so as not to include family surname. She is more widely known as Marta Wiley, not Marta Gottfried Wiley. Wendyful04 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Although there are several links to gallery pages, the description on all the pages is identical:
    "Marta Wiley's art is as colorful, captivating, and varied as the artist herself. Born in Mexico City, Wiley is of European, Irish and Cherokee descent. As a child, there was a wild streak in young Marta that her grandmother, also an artist, helped channel into the fine arts. Time and maturity have not stilled the childhood energy and verve of this artist. Wiley's passions run as deeply and soulfully as her dignified figurative creations."
    This can only lead to the conclusion that the description was written by Wiley herself or her PR handler. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Redundant Reference links have been removed. Wendyful04 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Said References have been removed. Wendyful04 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Wendyful04 (talk · contribs) apparently misunderstood my point. The references were not redundant -- they all pointed to different websites where Ms Wiley sells her art. The redundancy is in the referenced websites themselves: although they are all different websites, they all contain the exact same description of Ms Wiley's art. Therefore, they cannot be assumed to be independent sources as required by the guidelines on notability. Removing these references does not bolster the article in any way, as the only links left now are links to Ms Wiley's own websites, some sites selling her art and music, and some local coverage in an independent Phoenix-area newspaper. No indications of any significant independent coverage yet provided. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have checked every one of the 11 references currently listed. They are all from Marta Wiley herself, or from sites plugging her work, or they give only brief mentions of her, etc etc. There is no evidence of notability. In addition, the article is promotional, and most unencyclopedic in tone, containing such prose as "It was at the age of 16, after Marta had her heart broken for the first time, that she ran to the store and bought her first real canvas; without thought, she channeled her emotions through the paintbrush and created her first masterpiece" etc etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have begun rewording the article in orer to make it less "unencyclopedic", deleting much of what was written.

I have also sent an email to the artist herself in hopes of obtaining more valid sources. Although, JamesBWatson and WikiDan61 recommend DELETION of my article, I am requesting time to correct the article and would appreciate more input. Wendyful04 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Reply The problem isn't that the article isn't encyclopedic. If that were the only problem, then it could have been rewritten. The problem is that a search for sources on which to base such encyclopedic content comes up empty. Other than sites maintained by Ms Wiley herself or sites that are dedicated to selling her art or music. There is no significant, independent coverage available on which to base an encyclopedic article. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Ryuki: Episode Final (edit | talk | 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, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page seems to be mostly just a collection of original research violation, no real significant secondary source discussion or critical commentary of any kind whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment Not being able to myself read Japanese, I'll wait until a Japanese-reading Knowledge (XXG) interested in digging through and translating sources speaks up... or better, a Japanese Wikipedian who has access to hardcopy sources in Japan libraries and archive... as reliable sources might well be found among the results above, or among sources not available online. Schmidt, 02:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for now but renominate at a later time (like the end of this month) if it's become clear that the subject is not notable enough. Nominating an aricle for deletion so early isn't something I would do unless he subject's lack of notabiliy is immidiately obvious. NotARealWord (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a theatrical release by a notable company (Toei Company) and part of a notable franchise (Kamen Rider Series). jgpTC 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The band doesn't meet the minimal requirements for inclusion. So far they've only released a self-released EP. I can't find any significant coverage by third-party sources. In particular, I found no way to confirm that they're signed to Island Def Jam Records. Pichpich (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by The Rambling Man. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the dance (parodies) (edit | talk | 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 list of football chants based on Lord of the Dance (hymn). Given references are a youtube video. A Daily Mail article that mentions the lyrics of the chant but makes no reference to it being a parody. The final reference is to a fan chants site which does not mention the connection with the hymn. noq (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. The sole 'keep' did not provide any reliable sources to back up their opinion, and only one editor suggested merging this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Movement of Love Saint Juan Diego (edit | talk | 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've spent some time searching for evidence of notability or even something that would make more sense of this. Using both Google and Bing, I found very little using the English name and that was either based on this page (or whatever this page is based on) and the movement's websites. I tried "Movimento d'Amore San Juan Diego" and that had a lot more hits, but again, I couldn't find anything that wasn't a clone of this or their websites. The other Knowledge (XXG) articles were either identical or in one case a stub. This has no reliable sources showing notability and I can't find any, despite large numbers of hits in Google. There is a related article, Cross of Dozulé which is a bit more coherent - one edit summary that left an unreferenced tag notes "(Warning : this is propaganda material for a peuso-catholic sect" which may be a clue to the problem. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Florence 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)

Homeless shelter in Portland, Maine. Although its opening attracted some local media coverage, there's no indication that this satisfies WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

More than just press during the opening, it had 5 years of press and continues to get press. This building is significant to the Governor of Maine. This is significant to HUD. This is significant to Portland, Maine. This is significant to the 40 formerly homeless people who now live permanently in this home. Key word permanently. It is more significant than the one day of press that the Jetblue flight attendant received for quitting which is somehow here on wiki...significant?. It would be good to have someone who writes about buildings or projects review this to determine significance and to help make it better. It is something worthy of documentation. There's actually a documentary but since it's media, cannot be included. Feetplanted (talk) 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Clearly sufficient information from good third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DGG, there are more that enough references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Two WP:Reliable Source references are provided at the article - the Portland Press-Herald and NPR Maine. In addition, Google News archive finds a dozen more articles , all from the Portland Press-Herald. But nothing suggests that this small homeless shelter has any significance outside the city of Portland, or that its grandiose claim "The building was created to end homelessness" (50 beds?) is anything but hype. To me this is non-notable, being of purely local significance. --MelanieN (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Please Thank you all for your comments. Though I understand user:MelanieN point that helping only 50 women doesn't sound like a lot, the building will serve to help them get to a point of living on their own, and then will allow the next 50 and the next 50 and the next 50 in the same way. Feetplanted (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sources in the article appear to pass WP:GNG. SnottyWong 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Florence House seems to be a good initiative (from what I have been able to find on Internet). But there are some issues I would like to address. There are some goings on that I find disturbing. First of all, I looked at the article and the discussion page (this is where I usually start before forming an opinion). I find it odd that an article is up for deletion so soon after it is written. I would agree that the article is badly written but that does not detract from the content. I also find it strange that a keep remark was made on the discussion page, but that it was removed. The fact that these remarks were not signed is also weird. It seems that the article has been contributed mainly by two persons (or one person working fom different locations). Also it seems that one of the contributors is canvassing for support of the article. Knowledge (XXG) is not meant for political activities, it should remain neutral and factual. Another of the reasons I feel it is necessary to voice my opinion is that we again have a discussion with abbreviations that will not be familiar to those not living in the United States, this the English Knowledge (XXG), also meaning Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK (not forgetting all the other places where people speak or read English) and not the American Knowledge (XXG). HUD for example is not a term I am familiar with, but I presume it means the Department of Housing and Urban Developement. The goings on in the United States should be explained to make sense of most of this. Homelessness is not just a problem in the United States but everywhere. It is a sign of social responsibilty and solidarity that initiatives are being taken to combat this undesirable phenomenon. The fact that there is a retreat in the UK named Florence House makes everything mistier. If this initiative is the social initiative I believe it to be, the article should be kept but rewritten. If on the other hand, this is a political statement (and I am not in a position to judge this), it should go. --JHvW (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Francisco Alcácer (edit | talk | 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 junior soccer player. Although he has gone for spring training with Valencia's senior side, he hasn't played an actual match with them yet, and junior international teams, such as the Spanish U-17 squad, are excluded from the football criteria in WP:ATHLETE. From every indication, he probably will be notable in a few years, but as of right now he isn't, and Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. 2 says you, says two 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way (Lady Gaga 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)

As per WP:SPECULATION Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to keep the article and move it to a user subpage? - eo (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I mean there were a way ...Xxvid (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Speculation, rumors, and tangential material about a tattoo. More fuel for my argument that "unreleased album or single" should be a speedy deletion candidate. Why waste time on things like this?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Barriers to employment for international students in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious non-encyclopedic article. It reads too much like an essay with a one sided POV. I would also say the topic is too specific to warrant an individual article. Do U(knome)? or no 03:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jmundo (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Valy (edit | talk | 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 cannot find a single reliable source for this BLP. The only sources the article had, besides the artist's website, were images of posters of the tours. If this article goes, so should that image () and this redirect. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quiner (edit | talk | 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 non-notable dog. Should be speedily deleted, but CSD templates repeatedly removed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an article that describes a dog with cultural significance for the greater Metro-Atlanta area. Upcoming feature piece in the AJC details his significance to the youth of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scallahan2 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Scallahan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't think this is vandalism, it is just good faith creation of a non-notable subject imo.—Chris!c/t 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on. The dog "is loved by approximately 3/4 of the population of Georgia". That's not good faith creation. It's kids having fun. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg, Quiner means a lot to the greater metro Atlanta area. With such a unique face with such a unique, uplifting story about triumph over adversity, he has really been a beacon of hope to the people, espeically the children, of Midtown. Let's do the right thing and let this heavily celebrated pug keep his place in the public spotlight on the internet. After all, he has his own place in the public of Atlanta and it is deep within our hearts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickentender69 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — Chickentender69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no clear consensus here. However, there is no prejudice against a speedy renomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Smurl haunting (edit | talk | 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 naming living persons who were supposedly the basis for a TV movie about an alleged haunting. No reliable sources cited for lavishly detailed claims ranging from sexual assault to demonic possession to death from drug overdose. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:VER. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Clearly an example WP:OSTRICH or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not only was a film made about the event, it is also covered in the book by Robert Curran. It is also covered extensively as a hoax which need to be noted in the article. There are also several other book written by Ed and Lorraine Warren however those would not be consider thrid party sources.
This was also covered by CBS's Entertainment Tonight , as well as covered by a list of secondary sources:
  • Buffalo News, August 27, 1986
  • Scrantonian Tribune, November 2, 1986
  • The Skeptical Inquirer 11, Winter 1986-87
  • Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 25, 1986
  • The Haunted, Jack Smurl, 1988
  • The Haunted, Movie, 1991 Valoem 20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If the TV movie and the book doesn't even meet WP:GNG to qualify for its own article, why does the "haunting" itself? Citing the names (only) of a few newspapers isn't very convincing, and passing mention on Entertainment Tonight isn't an indicator of serious, in-depth coverage and wide notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
A clear bias is being shown here. The book alone passes WP:GNG:

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Valoem 15:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, neither the book nor the TV movie have their own article, and on the basis of limited coverage in the few sources suggested (but not confirmed), the "haunting" itself is only notable enough to warrant a paragraph in the Ed and Lorraine Warren article. A separate "Smurl haunting" article might be justified if the story should gain wider notability in the future. (PS: repeatedly accusing another editor of personal bias doesn't help your case.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Bias is shown when an editor purposely distorts the truth of a situation in an attempt to sway others. I am merely informing other editors of a possible bias. WP:GNG clearly states that a reliable source encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. The books do not need to have published sources on them and is not a requirement in WP:GNG. However the fact and the haunting itself has an availability of secondary sources covering the subject (such as a book, a film, and skeptic magazine articles) should affirm that the article at least passes notability guidelines. Valoem 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although lacking inline citations, the author has apparently based the article on solid reliable sources. Any statements which may impinge on BLP issues should be clearly referenced with inline citations or be removed though. __meco (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Userfy until inline citations are provided. Article makes a number of extraordinary claims, but provides no citations - only a list of sources which are supposedly about the subject, with no links and no way to tell what is and isn't supported by those sources. (I'm betting that the article at Skeptical Inquirer is a debunking, not a confirmation.) As it stands, it is simply a ghost story. It would harm Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility to let something like this stay here without citation to third party sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kacher (edit | talk | 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 of notability. Much of the information which has been posted to the article is unverifiable, being unsourced or sourced to sources which are unreliable, dependent on the subject, or both. A significant amount of information which has been posted there has certainly been misinformation. A detailed account is given at User talk:Imyoung. I have checked enough to confirm that the account given there is generally correct. The article is clearly, as stated in the user talk page I have mentioned, written as self-promotion; it is unverifiable, and parts of it are or have been direct misinformation; there is no evidence that the subject of the article is notable. The article has been heavily edited by about five single purpose accounts with very little or no editing anywhere else, and hehse edits have been heavily promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My rebuttal to Imyoung

Dear JamesBWatson and Imyoung, I am Chris Kacher. I have been notified that the page that was created for me in 2006 is up for deletion.

I am more than happy to provide whatever you need in terms of links and verifications. I am available at christian.geographia@gmail.com.

Imyoung may have an axe to grind most likely because he lost money in the stock market when he was invested with Gil Morales. Gil has already written about his drawdowns in our recently published book, as big drawdowns are part of his investment style. I had only joined forces with Gil as he was winding down his funds but got some of the blame. Gil has been completely transparent in his drawdowns as they are part and parcel of his style. He always comes back brilliantly, which is what sets him apart from the rest.

Imyoung claims he has little time for this, yet he spends an inordinate amount of time researching my background, then writing voluminously to wikipedia.

In rebuttal to Imyoung (my numbers correspond to Imyoung's numbers, and it is Imyoung's words where quotes are included ""):

1. "Chris Kacher, aka Christian D. Kacher, aka Chris Casher, is an expert at self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, who uses Knowledge (XXG) to sell himself and his products: his CDs and his latest a book that got only 5-star reviews on Amazon! "

Our book has ranked as high as #2 on both finance and investing on amazon.com. It sold out of its first printing in 4 days after the book was launched. We were also told by our published Wiley & Sons that it is now being translated into Korean. The 5 star reviews can be seen here: http://www.amazon.com/Trade-Like-Bill-ONeil-Trading/dp/0470616539/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268601553&sr=1-2, though I believe two reviews are 4 stars. That Imyoung implies that we rigged the reviews and took the time to post them is ludicrous. Did we also force websites to post favorable reviews on our book and make videos about it? Here are just a couple sites that have posted favorable items about our book:

BOOK OF THE MONTH: http://investchief.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-of-month-september.html POCKET PIVOTS VIDEO: http://www.chartswingtrader.com/2010/09/stock-market-video-using-telechart-to.html


2. I received a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry, which involves a lot of work in Physics, as most of my work was done at the 88" Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory adjacent to UC Berkeley, hence at this level, is considered equivalent to Nuclear Physics as the line between the two is blurred. You'll note from my list of publications (Physical Review C, etc) that circles in science consider this to be as much if not more physics than chemistry.


3. "In the USA it is not common practice to apply the title of a profession to a person who never practiced the profession nor is the title “Dr.” used except academically (from his accent I suspect he may have a foreign background too"

I dont have an accent as I was born in California. I have a 'California' accent to foreigners, but not to anyone living in the U.S. The 'Dr.' is used for anyone who achieves a Ph.D. It is not just used for medical doctors. Thus all scientists who have Ph.D.s are referred to as Dr. This is true in Europe, the United Kingdom, in Australia, and in the U.S. Also, I find it interesting that Imyoung admits 'In the USA is it not common practice...'. Is wikipedia just a U.S. based source of information? Of course not. Knowledge (XXG) is great because there are no geographic boundaries.


4a/b. "Totally ridiculous unscientific nonsense, the first atom of element 110 already existed and Kacher, lowly grad student in the academic hierarchy, did not confirm anything."

I was part of the Dr. Darlene Hoffman/Dr. Glenn Seaborg research team that helped to confirm the existence of element 106, and thus we had the privilege of naming it Seaborgium. I have evidence of group pictures taken with our research group which included me, Glenn Seaborg, and Darlene Hoffman. In addition, you will see that some of the research papers published contain all three names: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1

Here is the article where I am mentioned as having helped to confirm element 106: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. Note, in 1993, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) was Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, or LBL. The element 110 experiment was discussed in this paper here of which I am shown as a co-author: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1 (click show all authors and affiliations). It was the first time an atom of 110 had ever been made. That Imyoung says element 110 had already been discovered disproves the timeline of events as recorded by history. Also, provided on my wikipedia page are just a handful of articles in which I am listed as a co-author thus the assertion that Kacher has been co-author of over 50 research articles is correct.


5. "In all the other research articles I found, he was an “also-ran” graduate student."

That Imyoung implies that just because I was not lead author in many publications makes my participation negligible is ludicrous and presumptuous. For example, there is a reason why Albert Ghiorso invited me onto the element 110 experiment. I was considered a top graduate student for my unusual ideas and Ghiorso and I became good friends. Ghiorso was close colleagues with Glenn Seaborg and at that time, had discovered more nuclear isotopes of anyone living or dead.


6. "Glenn Seaborg was born in 1912 and at about 80 years of age no scientist I know of still mentors students."

Again, I appear in scientific papers such as the one I mentioned above with Seaborg and appear with him in research group photos taken at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Seaborg was in his early 80s when he held these bi-monthly research meetings in his office at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He was very much a huge guiding force even at this advanced age.


7. "Nobody I know wrote their Ph.D. dissertation while also running an investment service."

I started one of the first investment advisory services on the web back in 1995. Yes, I was writing my Ph.D. thesis, but I was also focused on switching out of the field and into stock market investments. I've often done the highly unusual. I recently was on an archaeological dig in Kefalonia with an archaeologist who the London Times called the real-life Indiana Jones http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1362158.ece. I also am releasing my second CD, after having released Teardrop Rain in 2008. And yes, I just did a book tour in New York City for a book I recently published through Wiley & Sons, a top publishing house. People ask how I find the time, and I tell them I'm fortunate to be doing exactly what I love to do- invest, compose, perform, write, and pursue other activities that come my way. It creates much envy/jealousy so I am used to people trying to tear me down, especially in what Ayn Rand once wrote, this 'culture of envy' that is the United States.


8. "Are they two different Kacher or did he merely play investor while somebody else did the work in nuclear chemistry?"

Again, another specious assertion. This was probably put forth by those who say I am two people because no one could have done all I have accomplished.


9. "Because of the hyperbole in the interview (not even Warren Buffett makes 18,000% profit over 7 years and somebody who did wouldn’t need to write books and drum up business)"

Again, this has been audited by the big four auditor KPMG. The documentation is here right on our website because it is hard for people to believe such a high return is achievable: http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf


11. "Note 7) his Charles D. Coryell Award needs to be verified. Of 33 recipients only Christian D. Kacher’s name is inserted using Times New Roman, all other are in the same font, Verdana ."

That Imyoung brings this up shows the mental state of this person. He will do whatever it takes to tear me down. http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster&. Please write to Kinard, W Frank <> or Graham Peaslee <> as they are administrators of the Coryell Award.


12. See http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf. As for employment at William O'Neil, read our book "Trade Like an O'Neil Disciple: How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market". It is a personal account of our years as top performing portfolio managers for William O'Neil.


13. Many biographies on wikipedia contain references. The references provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I look at a bio's references on wikipedia all the time when reading about a person.


14. Many biographies on wikipedia contain publications even if the person was not primary author. As above, the publications provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I may glance at a person's publications on wikipedia with frequency when reading about a person.


15. From the age of 5 to 12, each year Suzuki would choose a handful of talented students to represent the institute, and would fly them somewhere in the U.S. or to Japan. I was chosen each year. We have old copies of programs where it shows I performed for Suzuki.


This kind of behavior of wikipedia should be controlled. If it is possible, we nominate that Imyoung be removed from Knowledge (XXG). We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary.

That said, I want to leave on a good note since I focusing on negative people who wish to unjustly tear me down is not the best way forward. I believe music is the shortest distance between two people, and as we discuss in Chapter 10 of our book "Trading is Life; Life is Trading," we are all on an evolutionary path, not just as traders but as high level mammals. We help others including ourselves along this path by teaching and coaching, for teaching is the best way to solidify the understanding of concepts. And we hope our book and website will help others optimize not just their investing, but also their lives.

I am, and will always remain, a student.

Best,

Chris Kacher Teardroprain (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teardroprain (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


JamesBWatson Response:

I have no intention of going through the above post detail by detail, but I note that it confirms that the article was written for promotional purposes with a conflict of interest. This is indicated not only by specific statements in it (e.g. "the page that was created for me") but also by the whole tone and tenor of the piece. I also note that "We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary" reads somewhat like a threat to take legal action. I will call attention to Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on legal threats on the user's talk page, and ask for clarification. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kacher Response:

First, the legal issue is not against Wikimedia or Knowledge (XXG) as I think they are brilliant examples of open source. No other site has grown as fast from the diligence of people who wish to share knowledge.

Second, when I write "the page that was created for me," the page was created without my knowledge as I was informed of the page several months after it was created, but who else was it created for if not for me since it contains my name and some of my accomplishments? I have a following here in the US and in the UK from my accomplishments in science (elements 106, 110), finance (six years in a row of triple digit percentage returns each year), and music. I also have been interviewed in various books including Kevin Marder's Conversations With Top Traders and The Transuranium People. Over the last couple of years, many people have made positive comment of the wikipedia piece, so wikipedia has become near and dear to me, since I read from it almost every day as it is an excellent resource.

Third, I sense strong bias here. I put up factual rebuttals to Imyoung's accusations, but apparently no one is interested in reading these rebuttals, but instead taking Imyoung's accusations as truth. As I have said, I am more than happy to provide documents, news accounts, and links to support what people have posted to the page. Imyoung's assertions are either gross distortions of the truth, or just plain wrong. As one of many examples, his claim that we are putting up the 5 star reviews on amazon is nothing short of ludicrous. We have been interviewed on CNBC, FOX, Reuters, Bloomberg, and many other channels as the book sold out of its first printing in four days after it was launched. Here is one of many interview links: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1574558341

Chris Kacher Response:

Dear JamesBWatson,

I appreciate your advisement. Knowledge (XXG) notability standards http://en.wikipedia.org/Notability_in_Wikipedia read as follows: "Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals." It continues, "...accusing editors of being "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." In 2007, notability disputes spread into other topics, including companies, places, websites, and people. As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Knowledge (XXG): nobody will ever sort it out.""

Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."


That said, I have been on mainstream news media, as well as in books, in newspapers, and in major academic journals. Here is a partial list:

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- CNBC: CNBC televised interview "Street Signs" (anchor Amanda Drury) - http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1574558341

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Dow Jones MarketWatch article and on-screen interview: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-stocks-to-carry-you-through-the-slump-2010-09-01

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Televised Reuters interview with anchorman John Kozey = http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?ctype=groupchannel&chid=3&cid=139961&start=0&end=255&shareToken=MzozZmUzNGY0Yi03M2JmLTQ3MmYtYTM5Ny00NWZkNDFkODA3MTQ%3D

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Dow Jones MarketWatch on-screen interview: http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/dont-be-cruel-september/DD59D90E-A0BB-45AC-84C8-B5343169DF28

=MAINSTREAM NEWS- Bloomberg "Taking Stock" with the legendary Pimm Fox http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/taking-stock/

=NEWS- Gabriel Wisdom http://archives.warpradio.com/btr/GabeWisdom/083019.mp3

=NEWS- Jon Hansen interview “Window on Business” Internet Radio Show (60 min) http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jon-hansen/2010/08/25/trade-like-an-o-neil-disciple-how-we-made-18000-in

=BOOK- Marder, Kevin (2000). Conversations With Top Traders. xv, 1-31: M. Gordon Pub. Group. ISBN 1-893756-08-4. Kacher interviewed in Chapter 1.

=BOOK- Kacher, Chris and Morales, Gil. Trade Like an O'Neil Disciple: How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-61653-6

=BOOK- Seaborg, Glenn (2000). The Transuranium People: The Inside Story. 317: World Scientific Publishing Company. ISBN 1-86094-087-0.

=AWARD- Coryell Award in Nuclear Chemistry - http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster&

=NEWSPAPER- Goldhaber, Judith (Sept 10 1993). "LBL Researchers Confirm Existence of Element 106". Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element.106.html. Kacher mentioned in article.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C (considered a top journal in physics): http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v51/i5/pR2293_1. Click 'Show All Authors/Affiliations.' I appear as C. Kacher along with my thesis advisers D.C. Hoffman and G.T. Seaborg.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review Letters: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v72/i10/p1423_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher along with my thesis adviser D.C. Hoffman.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Journal of Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry: https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1006702712199. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v53/i6/p2893_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v46/i5/p1873_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Physical Review C: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v49/i4/p1859_1. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Radiochimica Acta: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=10719681. I appear as C.D. Kacher <first author>.

=MAJOR ACADEMIC JOURNAL- Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=193914. I appear as C.D. Kacher.

=MUSIC- Casher, Christian (stage name) (2009). Teardrop Rain CD. CD is available around the internet and in nearly 3,000 stores across the U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/Teardrop-Rain/dp/B002TQ9FT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1284503068&sr=8-1, and I will be releasing my second CD in early 2011.


Thank you again for your help.

Best,

Chris Kacher


PS: To bobthefish2, I like your suggestion. Can you or someone who is familiar with wikipedia edit my page in this manner? Teardroprain (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.


Keep this page should be saved. i'd have to agree wholeheartedly with that criticism above about wikipedia's notability standards being too arbitrary and stringent and SPOTTY. i often come across pages that do not deserve to be on wikipedia. but then when a page such as this one gets picked apart, i wonder why.

wikipedia is comprehensive beyond measure because you can find information on people who are notable in their respective fields, thus while maybe not household words, they are known in certain respects, such as Chris Kacher in the field of investments and science. i'm not familiar with his music but am familiar with his investing prowess and his endeavors in science, and the music part certainly adds flavor to his whole biography. i'm often using wiki to get info on unusual people who've made their mark in some respect, so certainly arent "famous" by normal standards, but definitely worth entry. but perhaps not all moderators are rational. Damientd (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.

  • Comment This is by far an incomplete list of my publications so this GS of 9 is incorrect. As far as COI, how can I control what people post? It is not up to me. That said, could someone who is familiar with wikipedia format rewrite the page so it conforms to wikipedia's standards?

--Teardroprain (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.

      • Speedy Keep I've been reading these arguments and felt I must step in and have my say. I've been a follower of William O'Neil, Ed Seykota, and Chris Kacher for a number of years. I head up an investment group in Incline Village, Nevada, the home of a few top market wizards including Ed Seykota. I've attempted to edit all 3 wiki pages, as all 3 are considered legendary investors, but have focused mostly on Kacher because I was able to add much to his page since 2007. Imyoung clearly has a personal vendetta against Chris Kacher- his accusations are agreed by our investment group to have no basis, and worse, they seem to have malicious intent to defraud Kacher. It seems this is a pernicious form of libel and defamation of character. Meanwhile, it seems Kacher has provided ample evidence of notability showing legitimate sources and links of his scientific achievements and investment track record. I'm beginning to agree with Timothy Noah where he writes "Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."This quote comes from the notability page on wikipedia. Point by point:


1) Imyoung claims he knows of no scientist in his 80s that ever mentored any student. What makes imyoung the authority in this matter? This is an ignorant statement especially when history shows that Glenn Seaborg remained a big influence in nuclear physics well into his 80s. Read history!

2) Imyoung claims that not even Warren Buffet achieved an 18000% return. Again, what ignorance. Kacher is just about the only market wizard to provide his audited returns, by big four auditor KPMG no less, which are posted on his website. Also, market wizards Ed Seykota, David Ryan, Lee Freestone, Mike Webster, and Bill O'Neil all achieved returns that were above and beyond what Buffet has achieved. Buffet has the advantage of having been an investor since the 1960s, like O'Neil, so both men are billionaires.

3) Imyoung claims all these 5 star reviews of Chris Kacher's book on amazon are forgeries. This is beyond ridiculous. Who would have that kind of time to create the varied and in depth reviews that have been posted so far on amazon? Also, what of all the other sites that are praising his book? Did Kacher somehow manage to control these dozens of websites that have posted glowing reviews of his book including one that recently made it book of the month? I've also seen him interviewed by major broadcast networks including CNBC, Reuters, and Dow Jones.

4) Imyoung says Kacher shouldnt be called doctor. Having been in physiology, if you receive a PhD in a science, people refer to you as Dr. Imyoung is trying to cause trouble on absolutely no basis.

5) Imyoung makes a big deal between nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics, saying Kacher is a chemist, not a nuclear physicist. What ignorance. He obviously is neither nor has any understanding of the two disciplines which are quite similar at the particle accelerator level. If you read Kacher's scientific publications, most of the work he did was at particle accelerators.

6) Imyoung says he has little time for this, yet he seems to have spent a considerable amount of time researching Kacher, and then writing that lengthy piece against Kacher on wikipedia. He clearly knows Kacher from somewhere, and has felt the need to get even for some reason. Jealousy perhaps? I'm no stranger to people who try to tear you down when you achieve a certain level of success.

7) Imyoung says that because Kacher appears not as first author in many scientific publications makes him an 'also-ran'. Imyoung clearly has never been in the sciences or at least never published anything scientific. Imyoung is in no position to judge Kacher's contributions to a paper on the basis of what position he is listed as an author. I've noticed Kacher appears as one of typically 6 to 8 authors, thus this is notable, especially when considering how many papers in which he appears.

8) Imyoung says he knows of no one who wrote their Ph.D. dissertation while running an investment service. What an absurd statement. A small select group of people in the mid 1990s were starting up internet sites while pursuing other activities. I am aware of Kacher's original site which ran for less than a year back in 1995, as I made money off of his recommendations. The year he ran his site checks out with his receiving his Ph.D. in 1995, so evidently he did both.

9) Imyoung says Coryell Award needs to be verified on the basis of font size. What?? Kacher provides the link to an .edu site where his name appears in a grid of Coryell Award winners. Imyoung clearly has some personal issue against Kacher.

10) We second Kacher's suggestion that imyoung be removed from wikipedia. This kind of destructive behavior has no place here. --Intriligator500 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.

  • Possibly Promotional?. I don't see any need to penalize (talk) in this situation. Even though a few of his assertions may be wrong, I am convinced by him and others that the claims in Chris Kacher's have to be viewed with skepticism until they have been confirmed by reasonable evidence. While this process can be frustrating for Chris Kacher and associates, nuclear physicists should (more than most people in the world) understand the necessity of scientific skepticism. At the same time, I need point out that Intriligator500 (contribs's activity in Knowledge (XXG) almost entire revolved around the content management of Chris Kacher's page. While there's a possibility that he and Chris Kacher are still unrelated, it does seem a bit suspicious... Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep I took bobthefish2's suggestion and did a major rewrite on the Kacher page, after taking a look at the Murray Gell-Mann page. --Intriligator500 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough because Intriligator500 has already voted. Peridon (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. My sympathies to the closing admin who has to wade through all of this prolix detail. I think the bottom line is this: The article is basically WP:PROMOTION of an individual who is clearly accomplished, but not notable. Moreover, much of what's said above vastly overstates the case for notability. There seems to be no assertion on the basis of musical contributions, so let's look at the other 2 possibilities: his work in finance and his work in physics. While I'm not an expert as to the former, one can look at other money/investment managers like Boaz Weinstein, finding that there's been much written about them in mainstream sources. I don't think we really see that here. Kacher asserts above that "I have been on mainstream news media", but it seems that much of what he's referring to are things he has written, like this. These strike me as routine pieces and my sense is that he's not a notable figure in the financial world. Of course, I'll be glad to defer to those more expert in the field. As to his physics, I can comment with much more certainty that his impact is not notable. An easy WoS check shows an h-index of 10 for CD Kacher (being careful to remove false-positives from CM Kacher, who has a very highly cited paper in Biophys. J.). While this value is borderline, it is informative to look at Kacher's place within the most highly cited articles. All of this work appears to have been done while he was a grad student, or shortly thereafter, and all have fairly large author lists with Kacher being mostly in the middle. For example, here's the author list of the most highly-cited one (42 WoS citations): Kadkhodayan B, Turler A, Gregorich KE, Baisden PA, Czerwinski KR, Eichler B, Gaggeler HW, Hamilton TM, Jost DT, Kacher CD, Kovacs A, Kreek SA, Lane MR, Mohar MF, Neu MP, Stoyer NJ, Sylwester ER, Lee DM, Nurmia MJ, Seaborg GT, Hoffman DC (emphasis mine), with the first author being also the corresponding author. Therefore, while statements in the article like "Kacher helped to make the first atom of element 110" may be technically correct, they falsely imply a much more prominent role than what Kacher appears to have played. As for the Coryell Award, this is a recognition at the undergrad level and doesn't go to notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete Wow, Chris Kacher commented on his own article's afd, which is clearly WP:COI. Anyway I agree with Agricola44, the person "is accomplished but not notable"—Chris!c/t 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep Agricola44: Boaz Weinstein lost $1 billion in 2008 to bad bets in the credit markets. Meanwhile, Chris Kacher has demonstrated record level returns in the stock market over many years. Why would we celebrate someone who lost so much money, while denigrating someone who made so much money then managed to keep it? Is that what our culture has turned into? A culture of envy? So someone like Boaz Weinstein can have a page on wikipedia who has limited accomplishments, yet someone like Chris Kacher gets ostrasized and deleted? Further, Kacher has a following due to his days on stage with William O'Neil himself, and thus was interviewed in Kevin Marder's book "Conversations With Top Traders" and a number of other radio and print publications. It's no accident the prominent publishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Kacher&action=editer Wiley & Sons asked Kacher and Morales to write a book on investing. Kacher's 18000%+ return was verified by KPMG. Kacher's book appears to be selling very well as it reached into the top 10 on both investing and finance on amazon.


Chrishomingtang: Its ridiculous if wikipedia says a person cannot comment on a wikipedia entry that is about them. To my understanding, when Chris Kacher learned about his wikipedia entry, he naturally became interested. So why would it be a surprise that he is participating in this discussion?


Bobthefish2: Understandable you would think we are mates, but I have had been learning about the markets for years and owe much of my own success to the likes of William O'Neil, Ed Seykota, and Chris Kacher, as well as other notables such as David Ryan (see his Knowledge (XXG) entry) and Nicolas Darvas. I have been one of the chief contributors to Kacher's page since the other notables already had relatively full pages. I have contributed in minor ways to the pages of Ed Seykota and O'Neil. --99.60.51.35 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I forgot to log in. The note above is from me. --Intriligator500 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough because Intriligator500 has already voted. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been done like that before. I've seen it on two or three occasions at least. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep To Chrishomingtang: Why wouldnt you think bobthefish2 is a sock of Imyoung instead of Chris Kacher, unless you are a sock or friend of Imyoung? bobthefish2 has raised points questioning Kacher's page, so it seems you are deliberately trying to create doubt when it seems clear that bobthefish2, if he is a sock at all, is far more likely to be a sock of Imyoung rather than a sock of chris kacher. Sock or no sock, logic should reign supreme in these types of debates regardless of from where the reasoning comes. Thus, how come certain investors of equivalent or less notability can have wikipedia pages but investors such as chris kacher are questioned? Some examples:

David Ryan protege of William O'Neil in the late 80s/early 90s as Chris Kacher was in the late 90s/early 00s Boaz Weinstein lost $1 billion in 2008 but Kacher has documented outstanding returns over many years. Martin J. Schwartz authored a book but so did chris kacher... Schwartz won US Investment Championship but Kacher's KPMG audit shows higher returns earning him an interview in Kevin Marder's book Conversations With Top Traders Linda Bradford Raschke was interviewed in Schwager's New Market Wizards but Kacher was interviewed in Marder's Conversations With Top Traders. Raschke co-authored a book, but so did Kacher "How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market"


So how come they can have wikipedia pages but investors such as chris kacher are questioned? it makes no sense especially when considering that kacher has a number of additional accomplishments so could be argued makes for a 'renaissance man' type of figure, a real rarity in these times. --Intriligator500 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from voting multiple times. As for the sock issue, all I can say is if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.—Chris!c/t 22:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


'UPDATE' I together with some friends have read through various Wiki articles including Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/Notability_in_Wikipedia, and Knowledge (XXG):Notability and so have done our best to edit Kacher's page to conform to Wiki's standards. We have included reliable third-party sources and links showing book ISBN numbers, Kacher's publisher information none of which are self-published (Wiley & Sons, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Nuclear Physics A, etc), and links to major televised and radio interviews with Kacher (CNBC, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, etc) thus have done our best to address the issues of notability and source reliability. That said, please let us know what else is required to improve the page. Thank you. --Intriligator500 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.


  • Keep The legal threat is withdrawn against any and all persons. According to Knowledge (XXG), "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Knowledge (XXG) dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding."
  • Is it inconsistent that the others mentioned earlier David Ryan, Boaz Weinstein, Martin J. Schwartz, Linda Bradford Raschke are not up for deletion, when their level of notability is equivalent? Additionally, it seems, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/Notability_in_Wikipedia that the definition of notability in Knowledge (XXG) has been in dispute. With respect to notability, the sources I see provided conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s "no original research," are reliable sources (journals such as Nuclear Physics A, respected publishers such as Wiley & Sons, respected broadcast networks such as CNBC, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, and so on), and are verifiable (see ISBN numbers, see links to published works and broadcast pieces on television and radio).

--Teardroprain (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.

  • Delete. Kacher is not notable, and the article reads like an advertisement in some places. Drewbug (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of whether or not the subject created this article himself, notability is not supported by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Location (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per James B. and Phil Bridger inter al. The others "not up for deletion" may be brought to AfD if Teardroprain feels they are not notable - or if anyone else feels that way a\bout them. They have no bearing on this case. (It has happened in AfD that when someone compared an article with some others that some of them got deleted too...) As to refs - I can't get into the Reuters one due to a lack of Flash on this machine. The lbl.gov one mentions Kacher once as one of three graduate students. The Coryell Award is confirmed and is an undergraduate award of the American Chemical Society. What its standing is, I am not sure. The majority of the rest appear to be blog, video, associated sites or mp3. I could be wrong - will look again. Peridon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Rebuttal By the logic in this thread, and I'm no expert Wikipedian so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if, in this case, major broadcast networks, major publishers, and major scientific journals are not independent reliable sources. So if one publishes a book through a major publisher such as Wiley & Sons as Kacher did, it is not independent because the major publisher has an interest in seeing their author's work sell. And any major network such as CNBC or Reuters does not qualify because they too have a vested interest in having Kacher on their program. And a big four Auditor such as KPMG does not qualify because they are not independent, but were presumably hired and paid to do their audit work on Kacher's investment account. Thus California regulators who do their due diligence on all investment-related companies in California are also not independent because they are part of the field of investments. But by this logic, then at least one-third to one-half of Knowledge (XXG) entries about people should be deleted.

--Intriligator500 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

KPMG were hired to do a specific job, according to their letter quoted. They produced figures from what they were given as requested. They will do similar work for anybody who pays their fees. The table of percentages is relatively meaningless as it stands. I used to achieve profit margins of over 100% on concentrated acids (hydrochloric, nitric and sulphuric). Being still at school and selling to my peers, the quantities I sold were rather small, probably unlike Mr Karcher's dealings. The percentages were impressive, though... Peridon (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Attribution The reference headed with the words "Kacher et al, C. (1995)" is more commonly found as "A. Ghiorso et al" or some similar arrangement of Ghiorso, Lee and Somerville (in that order) who were the three senior authors. Will the scientists taking part in this discussion enlighten me as to whether this is a normal thing - I mean, is it normal to re-attribute a paper to a junior author in this manner? A free access link to the document is at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=10179987 Peridon (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Attribution response You are correct. I put it in to drive home the point that Kacher is part of this paper because someone claimed Kacher was not, yet he is listed as C. Kacher. I changed it to show as Ghiorso et al since he was the lead scientist.
  • Comment Many said some time ago that Knowledge (XXG) allowed for most any entry. While there may have been some basis for this claim years ago, some more recently feel the pendulum has swung to the other extreme of deep inconsistency in allowing some pages in while deleting other pages, and consequently not letting in enough information and setting the bar too high for notability and for what constitutes legitimate sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/Notability_in_Wikipedia discusses some of the controvery in what constitutes notability. A sequel is being done on http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/. I am going to provide them with this debate topic http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Kacher as it shows much about how decisions are made. Please be assured, I'm a big supporter of Knowledge (XXG) as I use it as a resource. I want to see Knowledge (XXG) continue to grow in a positive direction. This means having balanced, rational views on entries. It seems this quality has been lacking here to some degree, first by imyoung whose straw man arguments which started this whole thing were then supported by JamesBWatson who admitted he didnt have time to go through Kacher's rebuttals. Then a mixture of keepers and deleters ensued. I do hope any and all rational arguments prevail. --Intriligator500 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.
Thanks for changing the attribution. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt that rational arguments will prevail, so you have nothing to worry about on that point. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete If the discussion had not gotten this far, I would have deleted it as hopelessly promotional under G11, and not capable of being encyclopedic without fundamental rewriting. As there is some possibility that he may be notable as an investor, I actually started rewriting, until I saw how little in the present article could be used. An article on someone of borderline notability has a much better chance of being kept if it had refrained from extravagant claims, supported sometimes by dubious and misrepresented sources. There is zero notability as a scientist. One does not become notable by being a graduate student on a team that does notable work, except in the extremely rare case that one has actually conceived it and has the chief responsibility. The profession of nuclear chemistry is not the same as the profession of nuclear physics, and the only reason to claim it would be a desire for self-publicity among those in a different profession who might be easily impressed. As for music, being one of a Suzuki performing group is not notability as a musician--and cannot reasonable be restated to call oneself a "child prodigy". and neither is making an essentially unknown recording of one's music. As for notability as an investor, a claim in an unpublished investment workshop is not a reliable source for anything. Being a portfolio management in an investment firm, rather than a principal, is conceivably notable, but only if there are very good sources for it from external parties.(David Ryan, whom the author mentions for comparison, is a principal in his own company.) Being interviewed about stocks is not notability, unless it can be shown to have been regarded by reliable sources as an expert. Writing a published book on investing can possibly be notability if the book is sufficiently notable , but at this point , the book is in only 10 libraries according to WorldCat. (Raschke, mentioned as comparison wrote a book that is actually notable .) . DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly hopeless levels of promotion and COI. Ray 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment Kacher is notable not just because of a claim in William O'Neil+Company, Inc's Advanced Investment Workshop, but because Kacher was interviewed in Kevin Marder's Conversations With Top Traders M. Gordon Pub. Group. ISBN 1-893756-08-4 as well as had big four auditor KPMG verify his account. The original document can be seen here: http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf. Since Kacher, like David Ryan, is a principal and portfolio manager in a registered investment advisory firm MoKa Investors, LLC, as the Ka, in MoKa represents his last name, he is subject to California regulators who verified his claims in January of 2010 of having achieved over 18,000% in the stock market.

Kacher's book published by John Wiley & Sons ISBN 978-0-470-61653-6 was just published August 23, sold out of its first printing in four days and is already being translated into Korean according to the publisher, so I would think the book will be available in many more than just 10 libraries as it continues to sell. It reached as high as #2 in both investing and finance on amazon.comhttp://www.amazon.com/Trade-Like-Bill-ONeil-Trading/dp/0470616539/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268601553&sr=1-2. Raschke's book has been out for many years. Kacher's book has been out for one month. That it is already in its second printing and has been translated into Korean and has achieved top 10 in three categories on amazon.com bodes well for the future of the book. Many investors have said on independent websites that the book is destined to become an investment classic, and videos have been made about it on numerous sites such as http://www.chartswingtrader.com/2010/09/stock-market-video-using-telechart-to.html.

As for Kacher's other accomplishments, he has been chosen to do the music for the upcoming musical production based on Homer's The Iliad, called Ilios, and has a number of other accomplishments in music. Granted, this has been discussed only on blog sites so by wikipedia standards, it is unproven. That said, documents exist showing his concert appearances on behalf of Suzuki each year in diffent parts of the world from 1974-1979, playing to audiences as large as 1500 people. His accomplishments in science could be argued as to their notability, but doesnt it add completeness to his entry to include this part of Kacher's career even if not notable? --Intriligator500 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Steve Johnson is a minor league baseball pitcher who has never played above the Double-A level. He has a 4.37 ERA and a .520 winning percentage at the minor league level, so he is not particularly notable, yet. If I recall, he was on the 40-man roster for one team or another at some point, so he has that going for him. Alex (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lacks sufficient independent significant coverage. Jayjg 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD - Non notable software product, no significant coverage available. Codf1977 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep A quick search of GBooks turns up two independent books which discuss this tool's value in assessing the quality of surveys. has several pages describing the tool (written by the authors). However, on pages 13 and 14, the book's editors (independent) discuss the value of the tool. states that the tool was used in developing a questionnaire used in the book. The tool is an implementation of the authors' methods described in their book. The book is reviewed in . It is difficult for me to believe that the AfD nominator made even a cursory search for references. It's very frustrating to me to see this sort of rush to delete articles. — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I dispute your assertion that I did not make an effort to look for references, my nomination is based on the lack of significant coverage are you really comfortable claiming that the book you list, plus the other one that comes up in a GBooks search get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the WP:GNG ? Codf1977 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the WP:GNG"? What does that mean? Is there more "consensus" information that tells the "norms"? Who "accepts" or rejects? These are sincere questions. I'm giving my opinion based on my understanding of WP:GNG.
  • In my opinion, your original nomination ("no significant coverage available") is misleading at best. If you saw the coverage I mentioned above, I believe you should (IMO) have explained why you believed it wasn't significant. Again, IMO, that would have been more intellectually honest. Just as Knowledge (XXG) expects articles to be WP:NPOV, I believe nominations of AfD should be as NPOV as possible. — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What part of "no significant coverage available" is misleading ? I was unable to find anything that "address the subject directly in detail" the links you provide are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, significant coverage is available in the authors' own book. I believe you should have cited it. If you believe that the book cannot be considered independent, that is a separate issue. "No significant coverage available" is patently false and misleading. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. HowardBGolden (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on HowardBGolden find. Click on his links, those books seem like third party coverage to me. Dream Focus 18:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this nomination isn't stated very well, it's still valid. The book written by the authors is a primary source and does not demonstrate significant secondary coverage per WP:RS; the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool. The third link provided is immaterial: per WP:N, secondary sources must address the subject in detail; a mention that a particular program was used to prepare a survey does not meet a nontrivial standard. The fourth link you bring up has no abstract, preventing anyone from determining whether it reviews anything, but whether it reviews the book or not, this article is about a computer program, not a book; reviews of a book would be wholly irrelevant. Moreover, even if these sources were to be included, the program doesn't have enough independent secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. It's a categoric fail. — Chromancer /cont 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Chromancer engages in a creative belittling of reliable sources. First, the authors' book was not self-published nor is it advertising. It was published by a reliable well-known publisher. Second, the statement "the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool" is unsupported by any logic, and it clearly doesn't apply to the academic conference at which the paper was presented. Third, use of a product establishes that it was considered appropriate for its use by the scholars involved. This means that they find it notable. Fourth, the computer program is an implementation of the methodology of the book. The two are different facets of the same gem. The review of the book establishes its notability in its field and thereby establishes the notability of the software which is the result of the same research. Chromancer claims that there isn't enough independent secondary coverage. I'm not aware of any specific number being required by any WP policy or guideline. If such exists, please point it out. — HowardBGolden (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. To address HowardBGolden's objections in detail:
  1. A book written by the designers of the program does not constitute a secondary source on themselves. To quote WP:N: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject."
  2. Neither can you assert that the editors of said book constitute a secondary source. The editors of a book are materially and monetarily involved in the publishing process, and therefore are affiliated with their authors; any other interpretation is disingenuous. You do not become notable because you write an autobiography; neither does an author's work become notable because they write a book about it.
  3. An offhand mention that a program was used does not, as WP:GNG states, "address the subject directly in detail". If it doesn't, it doesn't count as a secondary source. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". We can't pretend that when you mention a computer program once in the entire 258 pages that it constitutes more than a trivial mention.
  4. The argument that book = computer program or computer program = book would contribute towards my argument, leading to the conclusion that if they are not independent of one another, then they certainly cannot be used as WP:RS on one another.
  5. And the implicit fifth: I said there wasn't enough secondary coverage, but never said you needed a certain number of sources. What this program would need to be notable is dedicated coverage independent of it, its authors, and people getting paid based on the work of the authors (i.e., the editors). So far you have one trivial reference and a claimed review of the book- which, let us not forget, is still not the computer program. — Chromancer /cont 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Your statements are factually incorrect as follows:
  1. Contrary to your repeated misunderstanding, the editors of the conference book are certainly independent of the authors. They are the scholars of the conference committee who chose the articles to present based on their assessment of notability in their own field. Their discussion of the authors' methodology and software on pages 14 and 15 (see above) is likewise independent.
  2. The review of the authors' book in the scholarly journal is also independent. It establishes that the journal article's author and the journal's editors believed that the subject is notable in their field.
  3. The use of the software in the independently written book is noted prominently. The authors of the independent book "address the subject directly in detail." — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The book and the program have been made to provide a tool for assessing the quality of questionnaires. This book was published by Wiley, a reputed company for publishing technical journals. The program has been developed as a tool for Windows by Microsoft. The article does not do the subject justice and should be expanded to meet the inclusion criteria for WP. Just summarily dismissing it would be a waste. --JHvW (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That has not addressed the point of the nomination, that there is no independent significant coverage of the software, just beeing written for Windows by Microsoft does not make it notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Atos Origin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Atos Consulting (edit | talk | 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. Consulting firm. GNews returns only press releases. No indication of notability despite an impressive payroll. Only primary sources are used in the article. Delete with no prejudice against a selective merge to the article about the parent company, Atos Origin.  Blanchardb -- timed 22:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author request. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors born on the territory of Republic of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a typical WP:FORK article which is intended to replace Illyrian emperors. The author is trying to bring it to DYK, but there are several issues. First of all there was no Serbia 2000 years ago and there were no Serbians either. The emperors were Illyrian, or some of the were Moesian, and ties between Moesians and Illyrians are disputed. Second the places where several of the Illyrian emperors are completely unknown. Third the list is completely useless and irrelevant. Sulmues 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What would be so wrong with having a List of French writers born on the territory of the Second Spanish Republic? Such an article would provide an internal link with which to support a statement like "two-thirds of French writers were born on the territory of the Second Spanish Republic... or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be trivial and irrelevant? Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't "List of Klingon Battle Cruisers" also be as such? How about List of all mainbelt asteroids? Who are we to judge? It might be important to Serbian people. But you are right about on other grounds, I think, it's deceptive to imply that Serbs had anything to do with those emperors. Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Treir birth palaces and town are located in present day Serbia. It seems that Serbia is important to this emperors. --WhiteWriter
Yes, such lists would be trivial and irrelevant. That's why Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have them. Anyway, we seem to agree that a list of Roman emperors born on a piece of land that happens to be a part of the Republic of Serbia 1000 years after their birth is unneccessary. Do we? WhiteWriter: Serbia was "important to this emperors"? Huh? First of all, the Republic of Serbia is a land they never heard of. Secondly, none of them chose to be born on a piece of land that would be part of the Republic of Serbia 1000 years later. Thus, it can't have been important to them in any way. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, as a non-expert, my merge proposal may not be a good idea.—Chris!c/t 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is well sourced, interesting, and encyclopedic. Serbian government have tourist tours. exhibitions, scientific scholars regarding this subject, and Serbia have the second largest number of Roman emperors from one present day country, after Italy itself. Those are strong important facts that should keep this article. --WhiteWriter 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Neither Italy nor Serbia existed during the Roman era. So, I don't understand the connection. Also WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument.—Chris!c/t 18:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable group, arguable g3 hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiiism (edit | talk | 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 philosophy of life. PROD removed without explanation. Salih (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DVD Verdict (edit | talk | 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 - there is only a single non-self-published source for the article, an archived excerpt of an interview with one of the site's writers from 2002. Kelly 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lexington Medical 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)

Contested prod. Article is an advertisement for a hospital with no reliable sources provided and none found. The only sources I could find are press releases and passing mentions, with no significant coverage. TNXMan 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Man (film project) (edit | talk | 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:NFF. Production itself is not notable, and seeing as it's no longer on imdb, fair supposition that it may not even be made Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure on that one (although I would suggest fairly comprehensive), but the page previously included a link to the imdb page, which now directs elsewhere, which would lead one to believe that it once had a page. However if you try to google the film, it would appear that the film has not started production (and no indication that it will), and therefore this page is direct contravention of WP:NFF. Hmm - thinking about it, I should have just gone for WP:PROD. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad faith/harassment nomination. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

La Chiquinquirá Church (edit | talk | 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:Notability Smilemeans (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its a major church. You're confusing lack of content with notability again. I also don't appreciate having a AFD warning presented to my talk page by this nominator with the noble words "fuck you". Isn't that a blockable offence? Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

my mutter, never mind. Smilemeans (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability just like Turks in the Czech Republic. I couldn't find any identifying reliable sources to verify its notability and importance. And if this article were notable and important, articles such as Estonians in Luxembourg (446), Ukrainians in Luxembourg ( 458), Macedonians in Luxembourg (424) would be opened. Maybe we can find similar article ? in Template:Turkish people by country. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* delete Takabeg (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Striking out nom vote. Derild4921☼ 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Lacks significant independent sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. Looked for sources and the most I could find are self-published press releases, blogs, social networking sites, some local church websites, and an article in the Christian News Northwest periodical. This is a standard pentecostal church claiming signs and wonders. No sources found to support the statements made in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Cindamuse (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • No Delete After all the hard work that had been put into establishing Hearts of Fire and the movement that they are associated with, I listened to the arguments that you have both presented. So I went back, edited some of the script, and came up with better sources, newspaper articles, news channels, christian news companies, a muslim news source, as well as other sources that better relate to the topic at hand. Thus establishing notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwki123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not seem to be enough of a strong consensus to delete at this point in time, editors are urged to improve the quality of WP:RS secondary source referencing at the page, and please continue discussion, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Political candidate who does not (yet) meet notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. Current claim of notability stems solely from margin of victory in most recently held primary election. Article subject has held no public office beyond local hospital district board. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. He is leading in public opinion polls and has a strong chance of winning the Nov. 2 general election. Wouldn't the fact that he has already won more than 700,000 votes be a factor in establishing notability?

Here is a link on Knowledge (XXG) of a defeated statewide candidate from 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/Barbara_Radnofsky. In 2010, Radnofsky is the Democratic candidate, not likely to win, against Attorney General Greg Abbott. Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional link: Here is a second link of a Democratic nominee on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot in Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/Linda_Chavez-Thompson. I don't think she is likely to win against David Dewhurst, but she qualifies for inclusion. In her case, it could be for her AFL-CIO connection. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BURO comes to mind. The odds of this one winning the election are so high that we'd be engaging in pointless bureaucracy to delete now, and re-create when, not if, he wins. Ray 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Unelected candidate (thus failing WP:POLITICIAN) who has not received the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. In fact he seems to be pretty much off the radar even in Texas. His "huge upset" in the primary garnered no press coverage that I could find except for a one-paragraph mention in the San Angelo Standard-Times. No doubt this is due to the not-very-notable office he is running for - a seat on a state regulatory agency. I see that the sitting commissioners do have Knowledge (XXG) articles, so if he wins an article can be written at that time, but it would be WP:CRYSTAL to keep it now on the basis that he is likely to win 2 months from now. By the way (in response to the WP:Otherstuffexists argument from Billy Hathorn), I note that his Democratic opponent Jeff Weems does not have a Wikepedia page - so why do you think Porter should? --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I would not object to an article on Jeff Weems, but I don't have the material for writing it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
My point was that Jeff Weems isn't notable either. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if Weems is notable, as I don't have info on him. He has already polled more than 400,000 votes.Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Knowledge (XXG) sees lots of these types of articles come election time. Currently fails significant coverage in independent reliable sources necessary to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. References #1 and #2 are election returns (i.e. these are essentially stats, not significant coverage), #3 is a blurb about the candidate from the Republican Party (i.e. not independent), #4, #5, and #6 were written by the subject (i.e. not independent), and #7 is the subject quoted in a local paper (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Christos Gaitatzis (edit | talk | 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 couldn't find any reliable sources to verify the claims made in this completely unreferenced autobiography. The-Pope (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify - did you find any reliable sources to confirm that he played in those leagues, or are you just going by what he's claimed to have done? I don't know enough about European football to know myself - but his Australian football experience is not at a fully pro level.The-Pope (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Gamma Ethniki's official website (epae.org) confirms (in Greek) that he played in the last round of the 2009–10 season for Visaltiakos (and in several other rounds as well). It also confirms that he played for Marko in the 2004–05 season. There are links provided to match reports verifying this on the article now. As GiantSnowman mentions below, we're not convinced that the Gamma Ethniki is indeed fully pro (it is described as a professional league, but its the third level in Greece and the typical club seems to have a ground with a capacity around 1,000). Jogurney (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As a follow up on the GNG, I did some google searches for his Greek name and found nearly no mentions (just wiki-scrapes) - which is probably because he's only spent a few months in the Gamma Ethniki during 2010 and last played at that level in 2004 and 2005. I really doubt he would pass the GNG, but perhaps someone with better google translate skills might prove me wrong. Jogurney (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors are encouraged to discuss further improvements to the quality of the article itself, at the article's talk page. Additionally, possible merge discussions may take place as well, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Seems like a neologism, though it's unclear as it's not explained what exactly the topic is, with POV and editoralising in place of proper encyclopaedic content. Not clear from the references either that there's a topic here. JohnBlackburnedeeds 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete and consider starting again. I'm sure we could write a decent article on algorithms for experimental design, including their software implementations. But this is not it. Most of the article simply recaps the basic ideas of experimental design, with just three or four sentences mentioning software at the end, and they are mostly puffery. --Avenue (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: software for experimental design is a reasonable topic (although I think algorithms is better than just software), and I would reconsider my !vote if someone goes to the trouble of tracking down a suitable source (not just vendor's web sites) and works it into the article. There are some useful leads at Optimal_design#Finding_optimal_designs, for instance. But I think Knowledge (XXG) is better off without the current version, which fails WP:NOTADVOCATE. There is nothing here even worth merging back to our Design of experiments article, hence my !vote to delete, not merge. I also think we would be better off expanding the software/algorithmic coverage of our existing articles on Design of experiments, Response surface methodology, and Optimal design (which is minimal at present) before starting a whole new article. --Avenue (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is still a bit of a mess, but it has improved enough that I think deletion is no longer appropriate, and I've struck my delete !vote. I'll wait and see how it progresses before deciding whether I'd prefer it to be kept or merged. --Avenue (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into design of experiments. The only citation that addresses software issues, as opposed to DOE in general, is to http://www.statease.com/software.html. The article still reads like a puff piece, and I don't have much hope this will improve if it's kept as a standalone article. If it's merged, the material should be seen by more knowledgeable editors and probably be put into better perspective. I would have no objection to the article being recreated later if there is a consensus at Talk:design of experiments that enough material has been gathered for a separate article. --Avenue (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the "neologism" comment. "Multifactor design of experiments" is obviously not a neologism. Can "software for X" be considered a "neologism" if X is some standard thing, and software can be applied to doing X? The problem with the article in its present form is that it doesn't say much about the software. Presumably that could be remedied by adding the information and otherwise adapting the article to Knowledge (XXG)'s usages. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment A neologism is a made up word or phrase and as best I can tell "Multifactor design of experiments software" is made up as a topic. A search returns nothing but WP and mirrors, and the ref or external links seem to have nothing on it, so as a topic it gets no mention anywhere and is therefore completely un-notable.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 16:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your search was done wrong. You searched for "Multifactor design of experiments software". You should have searched for "Multifactor design of experiments". The article seems intended to be an account of software for doing multifactor design of experiments (otherwise sometimes called "factorial designs" or "factorial experiments"). Michael Hardy (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a misunderstanding here. "Multifactor design of experiments software" is not a neologism, it is a description (and not a particularly good one) of a topic of statistical interest. This is made clear when the article starts "Software for the design of multifactor experiments". Here would be a better search and there are other appropriate wordings too. I am not well qualified to judge the article which I find a bit thin when it gets to the point and more references would be helpful. However, as a topic, it certainly deserves a place. Thincat (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It is not a neologism. Design of experiments is a statistical method, which is used amongst others in Six Sigma and is detailed here: Design of Expriments. DOE comes in two types, Single DOE and Multi DOE. So software that create mulitfactor DOE statistical models is perfectly acceptable. scope_creep (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs expanded and wikified.scope_creep (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is in bad shape, admittedly, but the arguments don't stick. It does seem that the article is more about multifactor experiment design than the software used in such -- but in that case the article needs a new name, not deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This is out of my area. Are these the same topic? I've read the article you refer to, but it wasn't clear to me (especially due to the stubbiness of the current article) whether they were distinct; I thought likely so. If not, I may change my ~vote. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It's out of my area too but I think so: the links above are all from the article, i.e. they are its sources (though they're in External links), and all use "factorial design" none use "multifactor design". Some also use fractional factorial design and we've and article on that too. And both this and factorial experiment say the theory is the work of Ronald Fisher.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Multifactor experiments also include Response surface designs. --Avenue (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment The following makes me think even more that this topic is an inadvertent fork of Factorial experiments:
"Factorial experiments Use of factorial experiments instead of the one-factor-at-a-time method." (from Design of experiments#Principles of experimental design, following Ronald A. Fisher)
"Before Fisher's multi-factor DOE breakthrough, the common experimentation method was conducted using OFAT (one-factor-at-a-time)" (from this article)
Again this is not my area of experience, but everything I've read now including the links in this article suggests that "factorial" is the word commonly used instead of "multifactor".--JohnBlackburnedeeds 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Generally they are called factorial experiments, but "multifactor experiments" is a self-explanatory alternative. I think the article should be kept if it can be made into an account of the software. But last time I looked at it (some hours ago), it wasn't anything like that. I'll look again tomorrow..... Michael Hardy (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems the main contributor to the article has clarified this by updating the article: it does seem now to be on factorial experiments which we have an article on. Half of it is a section on software but it says nothing about it the software as a category, and gives no indication why the topic "factorial experiment software" is notable; in general just because a topic XXX is notable does not mean "XXX software" is, and we have very few such articles.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 09:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: while there is presently the problem of too much overlap with other articles, the article is still evolving quite rapidly, and does have a stub tag on it. It would be good if helpful comments can be made on the article's talk page, recalling that the main contributor to the article has only recently started here. Melcombe (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is heavily weighted towards one product StatEase's DesignExpert, I've removed quite a bit of that material, which might be more appropriate in an article on the company or product. With that removes I'm not sure that there is enough material for an article which might work better as a section in another article.--Salix (talk): 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Leukocytosis. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Nothing here that isn't already in the article on Leukocytes *Kat* (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lu Lah, Lu Lah (edit | talk | 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 WP:Notability. The cast list for a particular production is not relevant and no WP:reliable sources are cited. Prod disputed by someone at the school without explanation. noq (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Smilemeans (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:BIO. one gnews hit does not make it . LibStar (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable person- fails WP:GNG and WP:PERSON Reconsider! 06:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leave the socks, overall consensus is clear for delete Wifione ....... 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Deleted by prod and immediately recreated, guys a businessman and I can't see anything in his career worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) BLP. Original creator was blocked as username company promotional. If deleted, please salt to stop any more wasted typing time. Promotional company is Harvest Tradings - Off2riorob (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

*Keep As point of view of the above user Off2riorob (talk) i don't think this notable personality goes for some marketing promotion. We know better for promotional stough, a lot of tools is to be there in the market. As per my reasearch this is first Pakistani Execuitve whose Vision to increase the growth of GDP with different approach. The unique carrier is to be there thathwhy he is on this position in very small period of time. The Carrite (talk) said that this non-notable bio person, i strongly disagree. Azamishaque (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

  • It is alright to disagree and to think he is this and that, but we require reliable citations that support his notability. I have looked at the three citations in the article, at least one doesn't mention him at all and there is a minor mention in another. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

*Do not Delete with the point of view of above respected users and as per my finding. this article is to be created in July 2010. if you saw the history many wikipedia users from around the globe have put edits including my self. in the light of above user called propmotional company Harvest Tradings, when this article is formed with the contribution of some other user. then after some days some Wiki admininstartor or some other user have deleted this article sudden. then it created again and the lobby have came for the deletion. i have one question for all of you i have more than 100 living person biographies on wikipedia of different countries, just visit and see whther they are 100%. the Notablity factor is to be there of the subject article. its better to improve and put better references rather to critcise. i have seen the mentioned references in 2 of them proper info is there.Nhapak (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

*KeepWith all due respect, i have found Brazil organization link, the subject person talking on governmental level to urge and give attentions towards expansion of exports in Russia market, and if some young chap is doing that much in this early age, it must be highlighted and gave a motivational look for young generation. Well at least i get motivated :)Azamishaque (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Cuba earthquake (edit | talk | 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 anon request. See this diff. Presumably per WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - this is a red herring, the fact that I mentioned that earthquake on Mike's talk page in my original request is because he put it up for AfD in the first place, thus he would be receptive to putting other earthquakes of lesser notability up for AfD.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 biography. Courcelles 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Toshiya Fuji (edit | talk | 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)

Article unsourced and no reliable third party sources found (TV.com not a RS). Only source on ja.Knowledge (XXG) is to a fan site. Notability concerns: despite list of unverifiable credits, does not meet WP:ENT. Plad2 (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) <- Added. Regards, SunCreator 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There are no news or scholar hits; a dozen or so books are false positives. There are a number of mentions on the web (Google estimate 6,500, for what that's worth), but the first twenty hits are for fan sites, blogs, video sharing and the like. I didn't find useful sources in the Google hits I looked at. Cnilep (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I added a few sources repeating the linkage of the individual to the character and the significance of the character to the series. In doing the search, I found lots of less dependable sources, fansites and the like mentioning the significance of this individual and the character he played. Its not like he is insignificant. Curb your enthusiasm to delete. Trackinfo (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No one is enthusiastic to delete this, it was tagged as part of the work of the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project. The academic.ru cite you added is a wiki mirror by the way, i'll take that one out and leave the others.--Milowent • 03:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Two of the remaining sources are simply mirrors of all or part of Chikyuu_Sentai_Fiveman --j⚛e decker 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This page fails WP:WEB on all 3 points. Only references cited are SuperFogeys author created content. There are no reliable secondary sources or basis for notability claimed. ViniTheHat (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Race Car Patrol (edit | talk | 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 Go-bots cruft. And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Not enough of a strong consensus for deletion at this point in time, certainly, however, efforts should be made to improve the quality of WP:RS secondary sourcing at the page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Trivial listcruft at best. Legends of Wrestling is a sports game series, which has similar rosters. Just like a Madden game for example: we don't list every person in that, so this is no different. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (edit | talk | 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 list relies largely upon what I consider to be an unreliable source and is hopelessly crufty. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The information in this case is a list of awards created and then voted on by WON. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Sources provided include a personal website, articles written by the subject for internet publications, and bios of the subject, but no actual coverage about the subject from WP:RS. Most of the information about the subject given in the "Publications" section is work done under the auspices of other agencies and does not convey notability. --Kinu /c 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

*Delete, again, per WP:BIO. — Chromancer/cont 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Struck by user; see below. — Chromancer /cont 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Take another look. I just added several Reliable Sources to the article - including an interview of her by Time Magazine for heavens sake! --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would say that being interviewed by NPR and by Time Online does lend credibility, but I'm concerned that these aren't discussions about her work, but interviews with her about her work. I'm inclined to agree with WP:PRIMARY, which contends interviews fall under primary sources (per the footnote). Granted, they definitely show she might be an expert in her field, but seeing as how policy prevents basing an entire article on such sources, I would personally need to see more secondary sources about her or her work to be convinced that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu /c 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. Sure, it could be argued that what she SAID during those interviews is a primary source; but the FACT that she was interviewed is not something under her control. Rather, it is prima facie evidence that Time, NPR, etc. consider her to be notable. How many subjects of Knowledge (XXG) articles have ever been interviewed by Time? --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources here look like enough. I suppose it depends on whether you classify interviews as establishing notability or not; for my money, these ones are secondary sources providing significant coverage, which is exactly the type of source that establishes notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Contribs 03:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Second relist rationale: It is a BLP. Armbrust Contribs 03:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be regarded as an expert in her field, holds an advanced degree, interviewed by Vermont Public Radio and Time. She's a public figure. I do hate the layout and tone of the page, but that's not what we're talking about here. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that she appears to be a public figure, cited as an authority by multiple major media sources VASterling (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have struck my !vote from the record. I hate being wrong, but I have to say my own reasons for deleting this are marginal, and it's been bothering me as I've seen the debate go on. I'm not going to change my vote to keep, but I just don't think that the sourcing one way or the other convinces me which way this article should go; oddly enough, I abstain. — Chromancer /cont 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the top of WP:PEOPLE, quoting from Encarta: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." " If Time and NPR are seeking her opinion (so she is worthy of notice) on animal crimes (for want of a better phrase) then that's keep for me. She might also pass parts of WP:CREATIVE. Bigger digger (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. There is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, and Web Cartoonists' Choice Award does not appear to be an important enough award to confer inherent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Minimal notability. No third party sources found. Simply being published in a notable magazine ≠ notability; winning Web Cartoonist Choice Award ≠ notability if no other sources exist. Several other winners of this award have indeed been deleted in the past for meeting no other criterion of notability, such as Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (shame, since DMFA is really good) — if there's no notability beyond the award, it ain't notable. Last AFD was flooded with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLEs without a single policy being cited, and notability arguments being limited to the award and a listing on Comixpedia.

Also listing the author's article, as he seems to fail WP:ANYBIO; what few sources exist are interviews. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  • You realize that it was published in a print magazine for some years? And that it's run continuously since September 1996? For any comic, that's longevity. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Schwartz's article lacks an AFD template linking to this discussion. Someoneanother 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Schwarz Funnily enough I only know anything about him because he's featured in the latest issue of Retro Gamer magazine. Some 15 years after the fact he's been hailed as "Mr. Animation" for the system, the piece also confirms he's the creator of one of the world's longest running webcomics and has won the Bit.Movie contest several times. This guy was involved with one of the system's cult classics, Superfrog, and has literally just been recognized as "an industry legend in the hotseat" by one of retrogaming's major voices. This is on top of his comics being published in a major UK amiga magazine and him creating one of the system's unofficial mascots. The furry angle is another one entirely and may have more sources for use. I think he passes WP:ANYBIO just fine. No opinion on the comic as of yet. Someoneanother 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The sources you added are all primary or interviews, which are not enough to carry a bio. Also, lots of people get all sorts of buzzwords when they're talked about, so phrases like "an industry legend in the hotseat" are just puffery and nothing more. I still fail to see the notability for Schwarz; no one's covered him significantly, just interviewed him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (copied from my talk) He was interviewed in relation to his work on the Amiga this year, where he is referred to as "Mr. Animation", 13 years after the interview in CU Amiga which states "Eric Schwartz made his name in the late 80s as one of the Amiga's most innovative animators." That isn't just puffery, it's a niche but nonetheless recognized specialism which has caused these video game magazines to seek him out. Per WP:ANYBIO #2 "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Interviews might not be the ideal sources to base articles on, but sources are not cut to fit WP's purposes, and I believe they suffice for what is a an individual in a niche area. You still haven't added an AFD banner to his article, please rectify that. Someoneanother 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if there's jack squat in the way of reliable sources? As I pointed out, at least one other comic that won the same award had its article deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Contribs 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Web Cartoonists' Choice award does not appear to be a significant award (indeed it doesn't even appear to be a notable award, which is a separate standard). matic 03:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • comment. I changed my opinion to combine, under the name of the person. The contents of the two articles is sufficiently similar that this would be easy to do, and the notability is not so very great as to really justify two separate articles--whether or not technically justified, it would be over-emphasis. As always, I prefer the name of the person, who may do other notable work, so the article on him is more likely to be capable of expansion. I thank TPH for encouraging me to revisit my opinion & suggest a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Eric W. Schwartz as the interviews show he is worthy of notice per WP:PEOPLE. I don't think the web comic has sufficient notability to stand alone, so I suppose that puts me in the merge and redirect of Sabrina Online to the author's article - with less depth though. Bigger digger (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This book could br useful to someone. No preview, so can't say for sure. Bigger digger (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge, the award isn't notable, and frankly I'm really not convinced that the person is either, but if anyone is seriously interested in creating a well-sourced combined article it can't hurt to let them give it a try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I would argue that the Web Cartoonists' Choice (WCC) award does confer a certain amount of notability because it appears to have become the industry-standard award in this category. At least, if there is some other webcomic award that is more prominent than the WCC, I am not aware of it. Being published in hardcopy also increases a webcomic's notability. There is still a judgment call involved, of course. I don't believe that one WCC award and one limited print run should automatically warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article. But multiple awards and multiple print runs, do give more weight to the notability argument. For this article, it looks like we have one win and multiple nominations, which is kind of borderline. I also feel that the Knowledge (XXG) article could use other improvement: There is too much in-universe information, and very little in the way of 3rd party coverage aside from the awards. But on balance, I would say that there is enough here to warrant keeping the article. --Elonka 17:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Eric Schwartz since he is not well known for anything but Sabrina Online. No opinion about Sabrina Online. While the WCA is notable, the category “Best romantic comic” certainly can’t be compared to the category “Best comic”, and it’s the only category the comic won. WCA nominations generally mean nothing. Otherwise Sabrina Online has also just been published in one magazine if the article does not omit information. Which might be true since Sabrina Online is a very well known comic and had a strong influence on the furry fandom. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge comic is mildly notable, as above. Schwartz definitely seems notable (in a niche area). VikÞor | Talk 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete both. This page on a non-notable webcomic, replete with links to the comics, is not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). The author is clearly not notable; made some mascots for commercials doesn't cut it. Abductive (reasoning) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Both. In regards to the webcomic, the nearly complete lack of coverage for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards shows that this is an extremely minor award that is not an indicator of notability. It may just barely meet the notability standards for an article itself, but it obviously does not meet the "well-known and independent award" standard of WP:WEB. In regards to the person, the only near reputable sources are interviews. An interview is a primary source; sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources per WP:GNG, so this fails the standards of WP:GNG. Further, a few interviews in recent years is a far, far cry from the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" standard of WP:ANYBIO. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge, no opinion on which article should be the resulting title. Collectively, the WCC award and Schwartz's other work seems to be sufficiently notable for a Knowledge (XXG) article. --Carnildo (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Fast (edit | talk | 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, and appears to be not notable. Brambleclawx 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, and for that I apologize. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - will change my view after someone interested in the subject looks it over and give it a rewrite, as this article in it's current state it reads very much like a synopsis of a book instead of an article about a religious tradition. The tradition itself may be notable, this article does not establish this in it's current state.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on the sources linked above, this type of fast does exist and has been the subject of several books and news articles (although when you look at the article links, many of those seem to be about people named Daniel Fast, so I am not sure there are really that many potential sources.) It seems reasonable that someone nominated this for deletion in light of the fact that in almost three years, nobody has shown enough interest in the article to actually put any of those sources in the article. In the event this article is kept, it should be limited to what the sources say. In reading through some of the sources, there is support for the idea that some Christians have adopted this, but I did not see any evidence that anyone else has. In fact, for most of this article's existence, the first sentence or two mentioned only Christians as having adopted it. I have therefore edited the intro to go back to that idea and to improve the wording somewhat. Neutron (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to "Daniel fast". For the most part, a Google news archive search returns enough sources to show notability (there are some unrelated hits concerning speedy athletes named "Daniel" and the like), such as , , , , etc. It ain't Ramadan, but it's well-known enough for its own article. Mandsford 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Contribs 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Relist rationale: AfD was closed bewteen 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) and 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC). Armbrust Contribs 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This puzzles me. The article is stunningly sad, but the Daniel fast is highly notable. There is, in reality, a true Daniel fast, supported by medical and scholarly studies. The Daniel fast is far from OR or made up (not to be confused with this article). This article presents a very narrow POV of the subject, leaving me to wonder about a possible COI. Google "Daniel fast" and "church" and you will find THOUSANDS of churches presenting studies of this fast. Seriously, I doubt that you could walk into any Christian church anywhere and not be slapped upside the head with corporate calls for Daniel fasts and 40-day fasts. There are literally hundreds of books written on the subject. I'm not talking about self-published books, but major publishing houses. That said, this article currently does not reflect or present an accurate view of the fast outside of someone's interpretation of the story of Daniel in the Bible. As such, THIS article should be named "Daniel's fast" and accordingly, I can't find any sources to support the content (outside of handing you a Bible). An appropriate article about the "Daniel fast" would present the medical and scholarly studies, presenting a bit of information on how the studies relate to the story about Daniel in the Bible. There are several sources to support an article about the Daniel fast, but in my opinion, this ain't that article. Cindamuse (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a paragraph near the bottom of the article that refers to a recent study that seems to do at least part of what you are talking about. How well it does it, I don't know, because I am unfamiliar with the subject. Integrating the information from the study as source material for the article, rather than just referring to it, might be a first step toward the article you envision. Neutron (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Essentially unsourced article with no assertion of notability. This is an original essay, in the final analysis. Just to make sure I wasn't off-base, I made a quick visit to Conservapedia, which is a Bible-driven place, if you follow me, and they didn't have a listing for "Daniel fast" or any mention of a "Daniel fast" in any article... Maybe it's a non-notable neologism or something, but it's pretty clear that this article doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The article cited hasn't even been published (though it appears it will appear in the next issue). The "Daniel Fast" may indeed achieve notability, but when the main citation for notability is a single article pending publishing (and yet to be vetted by readers of Lipids in health and disease) the subject might be just too new and too novel to be an encyclopedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I also am neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but I just want to point out that the scientific basis for this type of fast (or lack thereof) does not appear to be the sole, or even the main, basis for the position that it is notable. If you click on the "books" link above you will find several books that are solely about the "Daniel fast" and several dozen more that mention it. The "news" link contains articles that discuss it. It therefore appears that this is a social/religious/spiritual phenomenon that (although I had not heard of it before) does cross the threshhold of notability. My problem with keeping the article is that, after almost three years of the article's existence, nobody seems interested in editing it to the point where those sources are used to establish the subject's notability. Therefore, I am neutral on the deletion. I also had some other concerns with the content itself, which I think may have been shared by some of the "delete" commenters above, and I have addressed my most serious concerns by editing the article. But if the article is kept, the whole thing is going to have to be rewritten. Neutron (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

While the article has potential, this is currently an original research, unvertifable mess Delete Secret 03:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep since the topic is notable, as Mandsford shows in the link to search engine results. This is an entire book about the very topic, demonstrating the strong likelihood of significant coverage. The article being a mess is not an excuse to delete, but we can perform clean-up by reducing the article to a stub with a basic summary and provide references for future expansion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Even the nominator thinks it has potential, so the appropriate thing to do is improve it. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sokol (edit | talk | 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 biography meets neither the criteria of WP:CREATIVE nor WP:NMUSIC so I believe that it shoould be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

a) NYT 1 - Titled PLAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: CLINTON is too WP:LOCAL and doesn't cover him in any depth at all.
b) NYT 2 - Has Halloween listings, again not the depth of coverage required.
c) Piercing the darkness: undercover with vampires in America today - not discussion, just mentions. We can verify he runs the Vampyr Theatre but nothing more.
d) Theatre World 1993-1994 By John Willis lists itself as a "statistical and pictorial record" and the snippet view of an earlier issue would suggest it just lists information and does not provide significant indepth coverage.
e) - again, just a list.
f) Theater week, Volume 8, Issues 9-21 - One trivial mention.
g) L'espresso, Volume 39, Issues 36-43 is unclear, but one mention of his surname in at least would not be in depth coverage.
He clearly exists, but he has not done enough to establish WP:Notability for wikipedia. Bigger digger (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"Sources"? This book is one source. And you're quoting WP:GNG, which is second in the queue behind WP:PEOPLE for the notability of, well, people. Bigger digger (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And that is what a biography is, a bunch of mentions about a person, all those words strung together, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln, except Sokol gets three pages and Lincoln gets them by the tens of thousands. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Contribs 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And adding unreliable sources such as Facebook is just making this look like a desperate attempt to keep this artcile. For what reason? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please. Argue against my words, not against me personally. Using Sokol's biography from his Facebook page is allowed. If it isn't, please cut and paste the rule that disallows it. I think you are confusing references used for notability and references used for verifiability. Certainly he is the best authority on the topic of himself for verifiability unless proved otherwise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (original emphasis) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if you mis-interpreted my post as a personal attack and am puzzled as to what in there was considered to be such. As you say, the facebook reference does nothing to establish notability, neither does the mention by Ramsland, no more than the bio summary given by any journalist in an interview. We are looking for substantial coverage of the article subject and there just is not anything which has been produced so far. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Speedy declined, and I'm sure a prod would be challenged as well. So, bring this to AfD. Non-notable voice actor. Some of the article claims can be verified via databases; Anime News Network and IMDb. There are also a few articles out there which verify voice acting credits, but nothing that talks about the subject in detail to meet WP:GNG. Has won no awards or critical acclaim to meet WP:CREATIVE. Akerans (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the things in the article are not true. The point is that even if everything claimed is true, it doesn't add up to notability as defined by Knowledge (XXG). --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
...and two more anonymous users show up here to argue for "keep" - but without providing any valid arguments. Guys, this isn't helping your cause. The administrator who closes this discussion, and makes the decision whether to keep or delete, will not base the decision on how many "votes" there were on each side. They will base the decision on the arguments made, how strong a case is made for keeping or deleting the article, based on Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. To say, as you just did, that an article should be kept even if it doesn't meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards is not going to get you anywhere. Claiming "unfairness" or "racism" (huh?) is also not going to get you anywhere. If you want to keep the article, FIND RELIABLE SOURCES showing that he is notable, and add them to the article. If you can't find reliable sources as defined by Knowledge (XXG), then the article is going to go. We try not to have articles here that aren't based on reliable sources - especially articles about living people. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Finnsville isn't a real community. It isn't listed in the Geographic Names Information System, it turns up just 6 non-WP Google results, and there's no mention of a community by the name in any books or official state documents. Based on this picture, the community is a joke made up by a tavern rather than an actual place. TheCatalyst31 01:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per OP. That about sums up what I can see. --Jayron32 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete I check the Wisconsin Historical Society in the Dictionary of Wisconsin History and there was no mention of Finnsville. Also there no mention of Finnsville in the DeLorme Wisconsin Atlas and Gazateer. I agree with Cindamuse about the humor of the residents. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

MidpX (edit | talk | 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. Cell phone application, no indication of notability. The one primary source used in the article is the creator's personal blog, and, aside from false positives, Google returns only a trivial mention here. To be sure, Google Scholar did return another hit, but it was from a website my antivirus had already blacklisted. The site in question is in Czech. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm very much in doubt as to how notable these Prussian Blue wannabes are. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tigatron (edit | talk | 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. Real world notability not clear, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Not sure what to vote for, but I think this is more notable than Airazor. NotARealWord (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This article was discussed as an MfD when it sat in userspace a little while ago. However, the discussion centred on whether it was going to be finished, not on the notability of the subject. I've looked into it a little further and feel it warrants further discussion here. I'm not seeing sufficient notability in this unsigned bands competition, despite it being nationwide it hasn't garnered enough attention in reliable sources for me - just a few local articles, some standard gig-listing stuff, and a very occasional article on the spat that the organisers had with some bloggers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Our nominator mentions the earlier {{mfd}}, but seems to have forgotten to include a ref to that discussion. Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:JohnDTraynor/Surface Unsigned.
  • Comment the nomination acknowledges that the festival is a nationwide festival, that has been in existence for several years, However it goes on to say: "it hasn't garnered enough attention in reliable sources for me - just a few local articles, some standard gig-listing stuff, and a very occasional article on the spat that the organisers had with some bloggers" Since when are regional broadcasters or regional newspapers not considered WP:RS? No offense but it seems to me nominators arguments may just boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename' -- When I took a crack at rewriting this, when it was in user space, I trimmed some of the material on the Surface Unsigned organization. As I believe I wrote elsewhere, I thought the title of the article should have been "Surface Unsigned Festival". Geo Swan (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. I tihnk you're assuming bad faith here when there's no need to. First off, I linked to the previous discussion (that's why "an MfD" is highlighted in blue in my nomination). Second, given the way the MfD closed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to get some more eyes on the article to establish notability. I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I'm saying there isn't enough of them to establish any notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't the reason I nominated. Notability is.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • "Notability", while often treated as an objective measure here, is actually highly subjective. It doesn't require bad faith to lapse into an argument equivalent to "IDONTLIKEIT". It merely requires failing to recognize how subjective "notability" is.
      • I asked why you don't recognize local newspapers as RS. It seems to me you didn't choose to answer, first time around. Should I ask again?
      • Could you please be specific about the nature of the additional material you think is missing?
      • I stand corrected, the nomination does include a ref to the {{mfd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Repeating myself again here - "I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I'm saying there isn't enough of them to establish any notability." That is, it hasn't received the significant coverage we require. Four of the references in the article are still from the subjects own website. You really aren't addressing the problems that this article has. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I started the MfD; I see it succumbed to bureaucracy, so here we are. This is not a notable festival. The coverage is minimal and all from local sources, and the coverage is not about the festival itself, but rather about some local unsigned bands. Fences&Windows 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of notability notwithstanding, this article is so entirely promotional, I somewhat wonder where the link is hidden to send in my deposit and registration form. Cindamuse (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate. T. Canens (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable independent film. It is listed at IMDB, but Twitter is not an reliable source. Considering how the article is made, it looks like promotional spam. Nilocla 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Kern (edit | talk | 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 of apparent ill repute, a few press mentions for banal criminal trivia, but no true notability WuhWuzDat 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have included in my comment above that Kern's impersonation of Jonathan Palmer is mentioned in References 2,4,5,6 and 7 in the article. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Suzuka Morita (edit | talk | 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?, unsourced bio フラワーズ (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is asserted - subject has played at least one major role. While there are no GNews hits for the English translation of her name, there appear to be several in Japanese. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Serious WP:BLP issues here as well as a lack of reliable information to create a detailed page. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion on splitting/merging is encouraged. Arbitrarily0  02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

article is about multiple unrelated and minor fictional characters, please delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Added source for notability - I just added a third party book source that should help establish notability for this character. Mathewignash (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    Toy guides are not reliable sources, any more than a phone book would be to establish a living person's notability. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    Toy guides are reliable sources, please read WP:RS. Do they help establish notability? That's a different question. I would say if they provide detailed coverage, yes. Hobit (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability - Added another third party book mentioning Ransack to the references. Mathewignash (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment- Yeah, better redirect to looting or something, since the different Transformers characters are non-notable and unrelated to one another. If a redirect are to be made, they would have to be like "Ransack (Generation One)", "Ransack (Cybertron)", etc. Ransack proper, shjould redirect to something else. NotARealWord (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:GNG; no significant coverage in multiple, third-party sources. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist (edit | talk | 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 article for which no reliable sources are proffered, about a documentary film that has never been shown in public and that crashingly fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films).

The article is largely written by Bkce23. It's illustrated with a poster, the copyright of which Bkce23 says he or she holds. Could the author of the article be somehow related to its subject?

I had never heard of this film (or its subject) until I noticed its prominence in the article Shuntarō Tanikawa. I then found that it was similarly prominent in the articles on Kazuhiko Kato (musician), Sadistic Mika Band, Juichi Yoshikawa, Michiyo Yagi, Yukihiro Takahashi, Maaya Sakamoto, Yoko Kanno, Yellow Magic Orchestra, and Ryuichi Sakamoto. Considering that the film has never been available to the public and that there's no suggestion that it soon will be, the prominence was very surprising. (And if the film did emerge and these people appeared in it, even this would hardly be remarkable.) The write-ups may have been done with the noblest of intentions but they came off as spam, and I therefore deleted them. (See the recent history of any.)

Not reliably sourced, not evidently notable, and smells like a promotional exercise. I wish the film well; once it's released and written up it can then get an article here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Later elaboration: I left much of what was written in the article Shuntarō Tanikawa, because it had some detail to it (even though it was unsourced). I did remove the humdrum stuff about how Tanikawa appeared in this film. (However, I deleted the peacockery added by Bkce23 whereby Mosdell was a "celebrated lyricist".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a film (let's term it so, though no celluloid was involved) made for the web such as The Story of Stuff richly merits an article. You point to this article in the Japan Times. It's a fulsome piece about Mosdell, not about this film. It does talk up the film a bit, though, saying that it "is set to debut at the South by Southwest movie festival in Austin, Texas, in March" (2009), thus implying to me some sort of theatrical release.
Well, is it made available for download over the web? This link among those on the page of Google hits suggests that it is, but it's hard to tell whether you're getting the movie or a mere trailer for it. I clicked to download anyway, and was offered an EXE file (useless on any of my computers).
Surely if it is available for download, its website would say so. What does it say? Within the megabytes of Flash (or whatever), we read:
Ink Music: In The Land Of The Hundred-Tongued Lyricist is a 90-minute documentary film detailing the creative relationships in the expansive career of artistic innovator Chris Mosdell. This vibrant production film comes by way of debut feature filmmakers Jeff Reece and Brian Comerford, with lush cinematography by Robert Muratore (National Geographic Explorer). Shot in HD on-location in Tokyo, Japan, the film highlights Mosdell’s rise from obscure bohemian poet to renowned lyricist for Japan’s biggest band ever, Yellow Magic Orchestra (YMO).
Mosdell's music, both captivating and sought-after by an expansive cult audience, was recently recognized as vitally relevant by Sony, who chose to re-issue his watershed solo effort Equasian in a gloriously color-saturated gate-fold edition CD highly prized by collectors around the world. With his affiliation as part of the “YMO Family,” Ink Music undoubtedly will become one of those must-have additions to the collection of every Japanese-obsessed audiophile, and will likely enrich the considerations of that country by cultural investigators.
(my emphases) What an idiosyncratic taste this writer has for "expansive" ("eclectic"? "big"?). No mention in that of any availability. (Incidentally, I prefer the Mark V Shaney ish version here.)
Now, what does our own article say? That the film:
is a 90-minute documentary film detailing the creative relationships in the expansive career of artistic innovator Chris Mosdell. Shot in HD on-location in Tokyo and Fukui, Japan, and New York City, USA, the film highlights Mosdell’s rise from obscure, expatriate poet to lyricist for Japan’s popular group Yellow Magic Orchestra (YMO).
(my emphasis) Good to be reminded that this isn't New York City, Belize. Hang on, that "expansive" stuff sounds rather familiar....
Though this isn't obviously relevant to the article-worthiness of the film, we have to take what Mosdell says with a shovelful of salt. "Lafcadio Hearn was the first foreigner here who wrote all about Japan," he tells us in the Japan Times article. Hearn hardly wrote all about Japan, and he only arrived in Japan in the year (1890) in which Chamberlain published his book Things Japanese, which was a pretty good attempt for its day at writing all about Japan, its unexotic as well as its exotic aspects. And you can easily go further back, to Aimé Humbert (inexplicably redlinked) and so on.
As for what the publicist writes (as quoted above) about other elements in the film: Japan’s biggest band ever, Yellow Magic Orchestra (YMO)? Come on! If biggest means head-count, then Exile has YMO beat; if sales, then Smap. (Musically, both Exile and Smap are unremarkable, to put it politely; but in Japanese pop, the music counts for far less than do the dance moves, complexions, hairstyles, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC), tweaked 10:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (... fixed one silly typo -- 1990 1890 -- 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Seven wonders of Romania (edit | talk | 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 list is purely the result of a publicity campaign by a single newspaper. No other reliable source has covered the topic, and I don't think we should, either. Biruitorul 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Running a Google search of "7 minuni naturale ale României" returns a fairly impressive list of results, indicating that while the list might have started out with a 2008 newspaper poll, it has gained traction within Romania and is worthy of documentation with a Knowledge (XXG) article. Bear in mind that the article as it currently sits is a bit of a disaster; that's not what we're debating here, however, only whether the topic is worth of inclusion. This from Pictures of Romania.com:"The Seven Natural Wonders of Romania (Romanian: Cele Şapte Minuni Naturale ale României) are the top natural wonders of Romania, which were chosen in a publically held contest held in July, 2008 (with over 60,000 votes). This contest was organised by the "Evenimentul Zilei" newspaper in 2008. Its aim was to show Romanians how many different beautiful places they have." Carrite (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Further note: Over 6100 Google hits for the specific phrase "Cele Şapte Minuni Naturale ale României." Carrite (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
For one, Pictures of Romania.com is, as they tell us, a self-published site, and thus cannot be used to validate information on this encyclopedia, which relies on "reliable, published sources" (WP:RS). For another, rather than throwing out Google numbers, could you please point to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" — preferably not from the Evenimentul Zilei website? Let's have some specifics from that "fairly impressive list of results". - Biruitorul 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
When a specific phrase in Romanian returns 6100 results, it's much bigger than "a publicity campaign by a single newspaper." If sourcing is currently imperfect, then flag for more sources. Carrite (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Do see WP:GHITS ("a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)") and WP:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"). Now, can you please point to any such reliable source? Until you do, notability is not demonstrated.
And by the way, what search did you perform? For "7 minuni naturale ale României" I get 22 hits; for "Cele Şapte Minuni Naturale ale României", 19 hits. - Biruitorul 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whole Azerbaijan (edit | talk | 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 unverifiable. There are 5 references in this article, all of them are Turkish references which are against Neutral point of view and reliability of sources and are original researches, for example, reference 5 is a panturkish weblog, reference 4 is an Azerbaijanian newspaper. The article is aginst Verifiability as well, because it is mentioning a territory from northern Caucasus to Persian gulf, while in this region lots of Ethnic groups such as Armenian, Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs and ... are living. Aliwiki (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the title of the article,the problem is that there is no reliable source which is talking about this idea. I tried to make some useful changes , but later I came to the conclusion that the whole text of the article is unprovable.Aliwiki (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as it does not have any reliable ground among all, no academic reference whatsoever can support any of the material suggested by the mentioned article. In total, the article does not satisfy the basic Knowledge (XXG) by-laws for introducing articles, one of which is providing accountable ground while creating the article. As a result the whole of the article must be removed. Thanks. Cyrusace (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - it is not unverifiable, as the idea exists. Whether it's notable or fringe ideology are not easily adressible. I could find several sources online, see , and . I see a potentially damaging POV issue here. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't yet dug into the sources for this, but I would point out that the nomination statement makes several claims that are irrelevant to the discussion. Sources being written in Turkish, or being an Azerbaijani newspaper, are not by those facts non-neutral, unreliable or original research, and the article makes no statement that no other ethnic groups live in the area between the Northern Caucusas to the Persian Gulf - only that followers of this ideology make the claim that Azerbajanis should rule this area. There is nothing in the article that says that Knowledge (XXG) supports this view. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I just mentioned in the talk page of the article, it is disputable that those territories were historically controlled by Azerbaijanis, yet this is presented as a fact though in a very ambiguous way. This ambiguity shows that such territorial claims are groundless...--Davo88 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep As per comment by Phil Bridger (above). Further more, the number of sources is sufficient for an article and topic of this size. I am also concerned about any political agenda that may have inspired the nomination of this article for deletion. RfD is not to be used as part of a political squabble - otherwise, every article that has any political significance would continuously be up for deletion. That said, I am concerned about the lack of verifiability of the WP:RSs. BlueRobe (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aarons 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)

An arena in Jacksonville, Florida that's home to a major league basketball franchise — except that I think there's a high probability of it being an outright WP:HOAX, since it claims an audience capacity of 120 seats (the party room in my apartment building is bigger than that) and the basketball franchise in question was also deleted as being unverifiable. But since I'm not certain enough of that to risk pulling the trigger on a legitimate topic, I thought AFD better than speedy in this case. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon Childs (edit | talk | 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 sports notability guidelines for tennis players, and by a considerable margin Mayumashu (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jedward: Let Loose (edit | talk | 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 TV show with no significant independent coverage. Should be merged to Jedward until notability is proven. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

it is these 'rags' (as you put it) that are the reason why it should be redirected. Articles should only be created where there is significant coverage and where the series has significant cultural impact or impact upon the artist/career. A three-part show documenting the antics of Jedward as they order a takeaway or squabble in Ikea (as seen in first episode) is hardly ground-breaking. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  02:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This is not a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0  02:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Action Masters (edit | talk | 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 "subline" of the Transformers toy series. No reliable secondary sources have covered the subject, leading to difficulties with verification. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- In-universe plot summary, vaguely pointed at by a single primary source. Reyk YO! 12:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I can accept the arguments about the deletion of some individual Transformers, this is an entire sub-line, and one of the biggest sub-lines in the entire G1 series, and it revolutionised the entire concept of the toys when it first came out. I've noticed that some of the arguments effectively ignore the toys and focus solely on the characters' appearances in the fiction. I can accept that for individual characters, but not for entire sub-lines of the toyline, at least in such cases as this one, where the toys changed so radically. JIP | Talk 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No reliable sources seem to be available, and it fails GNG. Appears to be completely non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and perhaps redirect to Transformers (toy line), one of many sub-lines of the main toys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep is detailed and appears to be a RS. briefly discusses the line. I have to say that there was almost certainly decent coverage "back in the day" for these... Hobit (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Deleting an article on one of the biggest Generation 1 sublines? Lame, Knowledge (XXG). --Divebomb (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to be different enough from the 'regular' Transformers line to keep a separate article. VikÞor | Talk 00:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for 4 reasons: first, there is no consensus to delete any of these articles, and merging--which is something that might well make sense--is impractical to discuss here article by article, but perhaps we will be able to reach a general agreement after remove the sockpuppets. Second, the arguments for deletion are most of them based on the assumption this is fiction, not a toy. Third, there are reasonably good sources. And the best reason, is that this AfD was started by a sockpuppet, and should have been summarily closed as soon as that was discovered. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references improve. Only one ref is anywhere near being third party, most of the information is unsourced. Hairhorn (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Hairhorn. Drewbug (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑