Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 12 - 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. Courcelles 02:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not notable. He's a NASCAR driver, a Scientologist and the founder of the "Dianetics Racing Team"

Consensus at Wikiproject NASCAR appears to be that he's an amateur who fails WP:ATHLETE

Most sources are either self-published or published by Church of Scientology as promotional. The other sources seem to mainly relate to the "Dianetics Racing Team" itself, which I suppose might merit an article (I don't know) which could mention the founder, however this chap doesn't himself.Scott Mac 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gray has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions in mainstream media, including several profiles. Therefore he meets WP:GNG. The coverage extends beyond his work for the Dianetics Racing Team, which may consist only of him. I've added a number of citations and more are available.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I've reviewed what you've added. Other than the article in the "San Gabriel Valley Tribune" (which I can't review), I can't see any media profiles of him as opposed to interest more generally in Scientology and NASCAR. I think "weird religion gets into sport" is the story, not this chap.--Scott Mac 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added more.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I still see none where the primary subject is Gray, and not Scientology and Nascar. Would it not be better to have an article on the Scientology Nascar team (which you've got all these sources for) rather than a BLP of Gray?--Scott Mac 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I disagree about the subjects of the articles, but if you think an article on the team is warranted then go ahead and create it.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Can you refer me to just one of the sourced (except for the "San Gabriel Valley Tribune" one) whose subject is Gray rather than the team or Scientology?--Scott Mac 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
              • If you want to create an article on the race team go ahead. I've invested as much time in this topic as I care to. In the future, please make sure to note it in an AFD when you canvass in your "Neutrality in Scientology" project (as below).   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                • So, no source then?--Scott Mac 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • Check the citations. Every single source talks about Gray. If you think the team is more notable than the person then go ahead and make an article about the team. Frankly, this deletion seems more about the campaign against articles on Scientologists then about motorsports. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • I did check the citations, and as I say, all are about the team. This nomination is about removing a BLP which I don't think is at all notable - and has probably only been included because of pro or anti Scientology ideology (although that supposition is actually irrelevant to the debate). I know you don't think we should review the Scientology material - but can we just stick to debating the article and the subject's notability (or lack of it) and leave out own ideological differences aside.--Scott Mac 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Knowledge (XXG):Neutrality in Scientology deletion discussions.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Article does not meet NASCAR's standards to be a driver, or team. I'm not sure about the scientific side of the article though. Since then is the cause of my edit which removed our banner. Nascar1996 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I declined the speedy deletion request because it didn't meet the strictest requirements of speedy deletion, but there really isn't any evidence that this person meets the standards set out at WP:GNG either. --Jayron32 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And please say it next time :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (The Saturdays EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as a non-notable performance EP. Thousands of these exist on iTunes and hardly any ever become notable. Per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

fails WP:NTENNIS - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a former WP notable junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

fails WP:NTENNIS - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a former WP notable junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Delete as an un-notable concert tour providing no context, per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music)#Concert tours -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — GorillaWarfare 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The concern is that this article is about an individual rugby league test match that is not notable. Vanruvan (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Does the nominator have any reasoning for the bald assertion that the test is not notable? No reference is made in the nomination to any policy or guideline. No reference is made to the multitude of references in the article demonstrating this to be a match that received wall-to-wall sports media coverage over a substantial period of time, particularly before the match. The match is considered so significant that the announcement of the venue months in advance gets coverage in national media. This match did not receive routine coverage of the kind described in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT. It is an annual event between two of the three best rugby league national teams in the world. It was also notable for being the first even ever held at Melbourne's AAMI Park (which the article notes). These kinds of tests are rare: there are only two or three test played every year between Australia, New Zealand and England. In short, this appears to be a drive-by nomination: the thought put into it certainly appears disproportionate to the work that multiple editors put into the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 00:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - all the parts of the argument of Mkativerata - and understanding WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY am restrained from making further comment - (however well intentioned the nomination was - the cultural aspects are such - no matter however few matches occur - how seriously the New Zealanders take their rugby - to suggest to nominate a delete of one of their matches...hmmm ) SatuSuro 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. This strikes me as a good-faith nomination, but I'm afraid it should probably be withdrawn. This is a well written and well referenced article, and the event meets the general notability guideline, and the relevant specific notability guideline.  -- Lear's Fool 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG and as per all the reasons mentioned by Mkativerata. Not sure why this was nominated :/ DubiousIrony 03:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Despite how well written and referenced the article is, I really can't see how this goes beyond a routine scheduled sports match with coverage exactly as described in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. There was nothing outstanding about the game itself. The only claim to notability seems to be that it was the first event in a new stadium. Given that, I would have thought brief mention in the article on the stadium should cover it, or am I missing something? wjemather 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Further comment. Does seem to be covered as much as it needs to be in the article on AAMI Park and the overarching ANZAC Test article. There is nothing to indicate any lasting sigificance of this individual edition beyond being the first match in the new stadium, which is more notable to the stadium than the test match series. Otherwise news coverage seems entirely routine for this kind of match. The SMH article Mkativerata links to above relates to the 2011 match, which will be held at AMI Stadium (AAMI in source - spelling error by AP, I guess) in Christchurch, NZ, not the 2010 edition held at AAMI Park in Melbourne, Aus. and just goes to show that it is routine for the build up coverage to start long in advance with the announcement of the venue. wjemather 00:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I won't pretend there's a clear answer to your questions, because the relevant guidelines (eg WP:EVENT) and concepts (eg "routine coverage") are always open to interpretation, so reasonable minds will differ. I think a routine event and routine coverage in this context refer to the run-of-the-mill events like weekly National Rugby League fixtures. A Test Match between Australia and New Zealand is different: it gets wall-to-wall (therefore not routine) coverage over several days if not weeks, and is one of only four tests that the major league nations will play in a year. For that reason, it will also be covered in rugby league history books (CRYSTAL, I know, but these discussions always involve predictions of enduring notability or otherwise). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Mkativerata, who I believe sets out all the arguments for notability quite well. This was not your run of the mill footy match. Lankiveil 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
  • This AFD was closed as snow keep by User:Dusti, a non-administrator, at 08:08. Per WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, am voiding the close without prejudice and reopening the debate. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per my above comments. Even though it is not an everyday sporting fixture, AUS-NZ recurs often enough, both with the annual ANZAC test and at other times with the tri-nations and four nations competitions. As an international match, coverage inevitably goes beyond that of weekly NRL matches (when there are many matches to cover instead of just one), but in the context of internationals (in any sport) such expanded coverage is normal and routine. There are sufficient RL international matches held for them not to be inherently notable, and there I see nothing exceptional about this one. wjemather 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The article as presented gives no firm rationale against WP:BIO or WP:PROF, in particular none of the roles held are a guarantee of automatic encyclopaedic notability. Searching GNews and GBooks I can find no obvious sources that would provide evidence of the significant impact required under the GNG. The article has failed to improve since creation in 2008 and was previously raised for PROD, so raising for further discussion as improvement in the near future appears unlikely. Fæ (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. The argument for deletion for the reason that he doesn't have notable or recognizable roles was well-refuted by the collection of sources shown, some of which should probably be added to the article. — GorillaWarfare 04:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, bit part actor. Stephen 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete I agree that he is not notable enough for an article; doesn't seem to have had any really notable or recognizable roles Swimnteach (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

suprisingly for all the claims made in the article linking it to ESPN, it only gets 1 gnews hit. thus does not satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. Does not have coverage that would not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As for the rivalry, there is insufficient coverage demonstrating its notability. However, the match may warrant inclusion in Stevenage's article as an important event in their history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football match. Yes, it was a cup shock, but nothing too out of the ordinary (see Shrewsbury 2 Everton 1 for another example of a Premier League team losing at fourth tier opponents), and despite the claims of the IP that deprodded the article, it is not the first time a fourth tier club has beaten Premier League opposition by two goals - this happened when Brisol Rovers beat Derby 3-1 in 2002. Number 57 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 57 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep it's probably the most significant match in Stevenage's history. Also the link to the match 13 years ago makes it particularly noteworthy - perhaps that element could be expanded; the article could even be about the two ties. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RECENT. A surprising result, but games like these aren't that uncommon - League Two Notts County defeated Premier League opposition just last year. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT particularly WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Knowledge (XXG) is not an almanac, nor a collection of statistics, nor a news source. This has attracted a lot of media attention and maybe passes WP:GNG because it's a football game not just the result, so you could end up having an article on any major sporting match because of the thirst of modern media. But at the end of the day, it's just a cup game between two league sides - there were about 40 such at the weekend - which ended up with a surprise result - note the difference between positions of Crawley-Derby on Monday night was just the same. There would be scores of similar results every season. At this moment unlike the Hereord-Newcastle game which has an article, it doesn't stand the test of time, since it was just a few days since the game. At this moment in time, delete. Brad78 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Saw this was up for deletion, so created an account as it would be an absolute travesty if this got deleted. Completely agree with 'ArtVandelay' in that the match 13 years ago goes some way to making this a very notable article. The history between the two teams has been noticed as well, which makes it even more impressive. Given the history and the huge attention both sets of games have got, this is definitely an article to be kept. Anyone who knows anything about football would know this article has more to do than just the 2010–11 match, the rivalry has gone on for years. Footgreb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
— Footgreb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The rivalry hasn't gone on for years. Stevenage have only met Newcastle in first-team competitive action three times - twice in 1998, the first game and then the replay and once in the game above. There are countless real rivalries across world football and each game doesn't get an article because "the rivalry has gone on for years". Brad78 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The rivalry has gone on for years, you just have to ask Stevenage and Newcastle fans about the feeling between the two clubs. Teams don't have to have met 100s of times for it to be a rivalry. Anyway the rivalry is an "undercurrent" that adds to the match and article imo. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not many years, let's face it. And fans of neither club are reliable references. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. This match isn't unusual enough - fourth tier clubs defeating top tier clubs is rare but not notably so. There are many examples of this kind of thing, and the history between the two teams is frankly almost insignificant - they've only met three times. Such "rivalries" number in the hundreds. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus it's a score, not a title. How many games between the two teams have finished with the same scores?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Decent article. Don't think we can ever have enough articles like this, clearly referenced and a very notable match with an ending that won't happen again for years and years. A squad costing £20,000 beating a multi-million pound team 3-1...wow. Should be kept. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
— Abatar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
By those standards, we would have literally thousands of similar articles, and yes, that is too many. It being a "decent article" does not make the match notable enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: The Keep arguments are not remotely persuasive. There's no "rivalry;" the teams play every rare once in a while. The alleged importance in Stevenage's history notwithstanding, that's a reason nowhere found in inclusion criteria, nor is it anything that is impossible to include on Stevenage's page ... why, look, it already is. Nor are results like this unheard of in sport; somewhere in the world tomorrow, some heavy underdog is going to paste a frontrunner in some sport somewhere. (Let's leave aside the two SPAs who "just happened" to see this was up for deletion.) This is a complete recentism argument, pure and simple.  Ravenswing  02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:Sports event. While you may try and argue it fufils the 4th criteria ("a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable"), the vast majority of the coverage cited is the sort of routine coverage of any match with the minor history this one has every time the first or second weekend of January rolls around. It certainly is not the Battle of Santiago nor even Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972, not yet at least anyway. - Chrism would like to hear from you 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly, the top of the page tells users to "assume good faith" - something that 'Ravenswing' has clearly failed to do. I think it's quite telling that three different people have made Knowledge (XXG) accounts to comment on this article deletion, but there we go. I think it'd be rude not to say well done to the user who has spent time working on this. For all of its proclaimed rights and wrongs, someone has spent a decent amount of time on producing this article, which should be applauded. As for the article itself, I think the two separate cup ties have been not only significant for Stevenage F.C., but also for the FA Cup, both times the clubs have played have produced notable outcomes. Those who have chosen the option of 'delete' only have "clipboard answers" – there's no common sense in it at all I'm afraid. The article should stay, it's notable to the two clubs, English football, and to the world's best football cup competition. Kleek Thorpe (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
— Kleek Thorpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: Our overwhelming experience is that accounts created specifically to dispute AfDs - especially where they differ dramatically from consensus of more experienced editors - are done so at the behest of a single editor, which is a serious violation of the rules. That being said, a very common mistake with newcomers is to mistake "notable" for "I think it's important," rather than "notable according to the pertinent policies and guidelines of Knowledge (XXG)," as we mean it here. Do you have any arguments founded in Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline to proffer?  Ravenswing  12:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah, the Gas beating Derby. What sweet memories! And that match was even more remarkable than this one because Rovers were the away team, although it probably isn't their most remarkable cup result. Anyway, I digress. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news service, and there's no indication that this result is as memorable as, say, Hereford-Newcastle or Sutton-Coventry. Bettia (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season - Oldelpaso's suggestion below is a sensible one. Bettia (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Another giant killing and example of recentism. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Spiderone 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I originally thought delete per WP:NOTNEWS. But I'm reconsidering. One criterion we often apply is "Would this article receive detailed mention in a reasonable history of one, or both, of the two teams?". I'm thinking this might be a "yes" for Stevenage, but I'm unsure. If Stevenage were non-league, I'd say a definite "keep". If a more prominent team, it'd be a clear "delete". But with the team's lack of much glory to write about, this may well be a prominent result. It may be too soon to say. I'll ponder and return. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is potential here for a Stevenage - Newcastle rivalry page covering both games, 1998 and 2011, and this would be a valid redirect to that page. WP:PRESERVE therefore indicates a keep outcome, seeing as that rivaly page does not yet exist, and much of it's content could come from this page. There is adequate coverage (example) of this as a rivalry to meet WP:EVENT's requirements for GNG level evidence of lasting, in-depth coverage. It's not routine for sports media to devote whole pieces about past matches as pre-match coverage, unless there is a notable rivalry already, so it also meets WP:Sports event too. Given that the actual result of the 2011 game was clearly a major cup upset on its won, as per the sources already in the article, this only adds to the case of the likely enduring notability of the rivalry, should they ever meet a third time (which is not exactly an impossiblility). Granted, a Newcastle Stevenage rivalry page will not receive as many page views as England Germany, but as an issue for Afd, that's completely irrelevant, as is the fact that the rivalry would obviously mean more to Stevenage than it would to Newcastle, in a history of the respective clubs. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your argument boils down to a large WP:CRYSTAL violation. "Potential" for a rivalry? "Evidence of lasting" coverage? "Should they ever meet a third time"? Nor does WP:PRESERVE indicate anything of the sort; this is not a matter of a problem article calling for improvement - the article is as long and as heavily footnoted as the article for either team, itself something of a WP:UNDUE issue - but one that ought not exist in the first place.  Ravenswing  16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Boils down to CRYSTAL? I referred to the future in one out of five sentences of my post, and in a quite plausuble way. And why you've included the word 'potential' with that view, I have no idea - there is a 'potential' rivarly article here, based on already extant sources and events. No crystal balling there. And from PRESERVE: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)....merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect". Instead of deletion, I am proposing creating a new article, using some of the text and sources already present here, and redirecting this title to that article. So it seems like a relevant policy to cite to me. As for UNDUE, it's irrelevant, I am not proposing keeping this article, so it's current size relative to others, is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How about the merge suggested? Bettia (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's very sensible. The enduring notability here is the rivalry, and that covers at least two season articles. Even if there was a general History of Stevenage F.C article, I doubt it would be sensible to merge the details of a two club rivalry, to just one club's articles. No, there is either a standalone rivalry article to be salvaged here, or there isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
But do two cup matches a decade apart constitute a rivalry? Bristol Rovers have played Man United 7 times but no-one would ever consider that a rivalry. I doubt Newcastle fans would consider Stevenage as rivals, certainly not as much as Sunderland or Middlesbrough, as there's no real history between the two teams. And do Stevenage fans even consider Newcastle as their rivals? As far I know, they'd name Luton in that respect. Bettia (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Was there anything about the previous meetings of Bristol Rovers and Man United that was similar to the 1998 game here? Would the coverage before any of those games have referred to the previous ones in the way sources did with this one? This was not just two football matches, like any other routine but infrequent cup-pairing pairing, read the article or the sources if you're not clear on that score. And nobody has ever suggested that this is seen in the same light as a Tyne-Wear derby, that's just ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering the last meeting was a run-of-the-mill league match almost 40 years ago, the previous matches wouldn't have had the same amount of media hype. However, if they were to be drawn together again, Rovers' 4-0 win over the Busby Babes in the 1956 FA Cup would probably get more than a fleeting mention. Bettia (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well ... to those who insist that two games a decade is a "rivalry," I have a suggestion: go to any of the sports Projects and make that assertion. (Cue the raucous laughter.) Heck, if we stick to soccer, every team in the FA (as is the case for many national leagues) plays all the teams in their respective leagues not twice a decade, but twice a season. Does anyone fancy that there's a noteworthy "rivalry" between Aston Villa and Manchester City? Between Crystal Palace and Ipswich Town? Between Leyton Orient and Bristol Rovers? Between the New England Revolution and Real Salt Lake? No, I rather expect not ... and if the "rivalry" here is all that "enduring" or notable, I challenge anyone to come up with a single reliable source saying so before last Friday.  Ravenswing  16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. 'Just don't look after Friday.' I really can't think why you included that caveat. It's probably a stupid question to ask if you've even looked. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why, funny that you ask. Yes, as it happens, I did. I hit up UK Google News for "Stevenage" + "Newcastle" + "rivalry" and came up with eight hits . Not a single one of them asserts that there's any rivalry between those two clubs; what almost all of them DO reference is the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland, Newcastle's next match, and whether NU is up to snuff to hold up their end of the rivalry after the loss to Stevenage. So you're partially right, come to that ... why did I bother with a caveat? I'll correct that now.  Ravenswing  18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Further to my comment above, I think this is indeed a historic match for Stevenage - the club's official website doesn't even possess a history section. That it's not significant in FA Cup history or in the history of NUFC (both of which I agree with) is therefore irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete -Yes it's well written but it just isn't notable in wider football terms. The fact that it is notable for Stevenage seems to imply that games with shocks, scoring records etc. for all clubs deserve articles and I don't believe Wiki needs that.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. The match is of far more importance to Stevenage than Newcastle. There no guarantee that this match will be talked of outside Stevenage for anything beyond the next round of the competition. However, including it in the season article — where it would go alongside details of another significant event for Stevenage, their first league season — would allow it to be covered in reasonable depth without issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable match in the history of Stevenage F.C., seems to have enough sources to make a decent article, and plenty of context when the previous tie is taken into account. The BBC did a pre-match article focusing exclusively on the rivalry between the sides so if the match itself isn't kept, a Restructure might be an option? - JVG (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - yes this has coverage, but not "substantial" coverage - most of the reports seem to regurgitate the same old nonsense about "giant-killing", "old rivalry" etc. when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case. Maybe (maybe) it'll prove itself to have a lasting impact in the future, but we don't have crystal balls that see into the future, so can't make that assumption. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case" – Christ, you really know nothing about football do you? As a Stevenage fan I can tell you there is very much bitterness and rivalry there, and I think a League Two side beating a Premier League team 3–1 can be described as a giant-killing, which is why it has been. SBFCEditSBFCEdit 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What I meant is that this is not an unsual result, and not one which is sufficient enough to merit its own article. Giantkillings happen all the time, big whoop. GiantSnowman 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
@SBFC: It certainly is a giantkilling, however there is nothing in any of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria that says a giantkilling is worthy of an article. Brad78 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The idea that the match is notable in the history of Stevenage FC is irrelevant. By that token, all notable clubs could have a few matches notable in their histories, all of which could have articles. Thousands of new articles on fairly minor football matches. That's not what an encyclopedia needs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. This article is a directory of local agencies in charge of water, parking, sewage, etc in one US county. Most are nonnotable. Edison (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

no evidence of notability...no references since 2008 Teapotgeorge 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luigi30 (Taλk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel (U.S. political term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is offensive, to even on wikipedia give the notion that there are somehow 2 meanings to Blood Libel. That is patently false and serves as yet another example of conservative christians attempting to steal a piece of Jewish history. Palin's disgusting and idiotic use isn't worth the videoclip she uttered it in, yet alone putting it on Knowledge (XXG). Come on Wiki, delet this BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.153.8 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment actually the NYT and other RSs indicated this was a new term being invented. See if you don't believe it. I don't know what it means about Christians stealing history but truth is not a requirement for an article, just verifiable reporting in reliable sources. KeptSouth (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless articles are now going to be predicitve, it should be deleted, as it gives as its basic definition "a U.S. political term popularized by former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin". One rarely popularizes a term in a single speech, and the fact that it's being discussed by some people doesn't mean it's popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.105.46 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to ever be worth an encyclopedia article. Palin used the term "blood libel" is a speech only today, sparking some minor criticism from some American Jews and some support from others. Palin didn't coin this term, and wasn't the first to use it the context of false accusations against conservatives after the 2011 Tucson shootings - that was Glenn Reynolds, and he noted others had used it before as well.

Another term which Palin coined, "refudiate", received much wider media coverage but does not have an article here. "Death panel", another term she coined, only achieved notable status after its use spread nationally amongst others, independently of her usage.

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEO. 99.142.8.205 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to have a wikipedia entry for every word she creates or misuses? Delete.209.51.184.10 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the page is being used simply for propaganda purposes. Please delete.

  • Comment Rather premature to nominate for deletion as it had a under construction tag with a duration of just 1/2 hour on it. As edit conflicts are occurring and I lost material I was about to add, I will have to add time to the under construction tag, and will respond to this AfD later. KeptSouth (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as a pretty blatant form of CYA propaganda and WP:NOTNEO. This is just ridiculous. User:209.51.184.10 more or less covers it. --Bobak (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Misusing a word that has existed for centuries cannot justify the birth of an alternative definition. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.3.97.133 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Apparently a law professor and a major political figure and other conservative commentators thought this was a new use. Sarah Palin alone created the "Death panel" term, so it is likely in my view that this alternative use will be referred to by media for some time. KeptSouth (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly propaganda - at the very least this should be a stub in the real article Blood libel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.10.170 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Delete... propaganda....self serving CYI. another example of Palin misuse & ignorance. 12 Jan 2011
  • Delete- This could be added to the Blood Libel article that already exists. Seems counter productive to have a different article every time someone uses a word in a different context. Palin already has a few pages, 'Mamma Grizzly" etc. Perhaps we should put all of her nonsensical ramblings in one place... a PalinWiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prey4mojo (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not even a neologism, it's an attempt to redefine an established concept, purely in reaction to and for political purposes. That's not what Knowledge (XXG) is for.--RadioFan (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete This page was created to protect Sarah Palin after she used the term apparently without knowing its true meaning.
  • Keep The main article on blood libel does not cover this use, it is a new use, and it is being very widely reported and discussed in major media such as the Washington Post and New York Times. Palin and the other bloggers and commentators were not saying the democrats or liberals, etc. were planning on killing Jews so this distinction should be in a separate article. The article is needed in my view to distinguish the two very very different uses and so as not to impugn Sarah Palin's reputation as she is a LP. KeptSouth (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment it's not a new use, it's a misuse and it's recentism. This will be forgotten in days if not hours.--RadioFan (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Reply, none of that makes it a generic political term as asserted by this article. What those news articles are describing is her odd usage. Concievably you could move it to Sarah Palin's Blood Libel Comment, but that would make it a news article. Depending on how notable this incident becomes, it's far more appropriate to mention it on her page, as the notable thing here is her use of the phrase, not the words themselves.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment KeptSouth initiated this article, something that should be revealed in the interest of full disclosure. Moncrief (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I should have said I created the article, but I was too busy trying to add to the article and respond in various places to all the objections to think of everything. I will keep this in mind, though, should I ever encounter the same situation as an article creator or main contributor, I will think to mention it straight out. Regardless, my omission doesn't make any difference in weight b/c my !vote is the only keep so far. KeptSouth (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, ideally speedy. Whether or not the other article covers this use or not is irrelevent. One politician saying the phrase out of context once does not immediately make it a notable political term, so the entire premise of the article fails WP:OR. Ideally this should be speedy deleted to prevent this page giving traction to the idea this is a commonly used phrase, which it patently isn't.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely notable. Political motive. Also as per above. Re-create the article if the term gains notoriety in the long run, not because it's caused a minor, and possibly short-term, controversy over its incorrect use. ArdClose (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I agree with ThePaintedOne. This article seems like an effort to blur Palin's faux pas. Taking it at face value as a neologism distinct from the historical term? Not notable. Where is the article for refudiate? 66.147.172.7 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Refudiate redirects to Conversion (linguistics)#Humor. TJRC (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment' Refudiate was not really notable apparently - but "Death panel" apparently is, even though there is no such thing as a death panel, according the vast majority view. KeptSouth (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Manipulation of what? It is all per Reliable sources. If you think there is lack of balance, you can add a balance tag. KeptSouth (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Manipulation of Knowledge (XXG) of course, by pretending that this is a separate expression with its own separate use. Mezigue (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You are coming close to a personal attack. I suggest you read WP:AGF again. Your comment is also counterfactual. There is no pretending, there are numerous sources on the new usage.KeptSouth (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because one politician used it in the past 72 hours does not make this already exiting defined historical phrase a political term, I think this is an attempt to create misdirection and misinformation. Add a section possibly in the future to the existing page, BLOOD LIBEL is not a US Political term, it already existed and was used in the existing context. D E L E T E0pen$0urce (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Not worthy of an article - just a comment. If it's still being used commonly in a year then we might have need for such an article.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - "crawl out of the woodwork"? that is an insult, and completely unnecessary. KeptSouth (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems like someone's got down to the crux of the matter. I also agree with Blueboy96 that this process is taking too long when it's obvious this article won't be saved. The only opposition we've had so far (out of over 20 votes) is from the creator of the article, who has received several reply comments which haven't been addressed. I doubt there will be further opposition. ArdClose (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its an attempt to separate Palin's use of an anti-semitic term from Sarah Palin. It isn't a US political term, its a bad choice of words. Put the fact she decided to go on the defensive with anti-semitic words on a day of mourning on her article, not a new one. WP:NOTNEO. 94.9.9.162 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment It was clearly intended to be a political term or slogan, but due to the unanticipated exceedingly poor reaction, the handlers and probably Sarah herself have changed their minds and are walking it back. what I am saying is, the situation has changed. I agree now it was premature b/c it won't be used, contrary to earlier plans.KeptSouth (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Yet you still think it deserves its own article? Moncrief (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even think this warrants mention in the article about Sarah Palin (though obviously that's a debate for a different corner of the project). Recentism gives this the false aura of relevance, but it's really not even footnote-worthy information. Knowledge (XXG) is not Twitter Trends. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Sarah Palin has generated so much attention that for better or worse she has influence and her comments show how she intends to use it. This was a prepared remark, not an off the cuff comment. I think this will Wiki could be part of the Blood libel Wiki or part of a broader file about political discourse, and prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.100.103 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pile on delete. If Palin's use becomes relevant, the first place for it is the already existing Blood libel and/or one of the many pages on Palin herself. Even if the term continues to be used, it's unlikely that it will need a separate article, although that bridge can be crossed once there is evidence of widespread use. For now, WP:NOTNEWS suffices if she chose her words badly, and WP:NEOLOGISM suffices if she was trying to coin a new phrase. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This fails notability and it looks like from the edit log that there were some attempts to edit this in before Palin came out with her video. That strongly implies that this was political propaganda as well as a misuse of language. 75.86.196.109 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment that is absolutely false - the article was begun several hours after Palin's speech. KeptSouth (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Just because Palin misuses a historical term does not mean a separate Knowledge (XXG) page devoted to that usage needs to be created. M772100 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is less than 48 hours old, this is ridiculous, I took a glance at wikipedia because I was uncomfortable with the usage in the press and there is already a redirect to a new article? Come on!!!Jmackaerospace (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Comment Okay, guys, time to delete this. ArdClose (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Anyone know a non-involved admin they can alert to this page? Time to give this puppy its well-deserved coup de grâce. Moncrief (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This isn't a significant page, and Phoenix Jones is already included on the page real-life superhero. All of these real-life superheroes have been mentioned in various news outlets, so I don't see a reason why this particular one should have his own article but not the rest. All the necessary information on this person is included at real-life superhero, or can be added to that page. Kag427 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Jones is receiving a considerable amount of coverage, both local and national, and can make a strong case to pass the WP:GNG on his own. The Real-life superhero page is a horrible mess, it's a pretty indiscriminate list of mentions of superheroes, and includes examples like The Aquabats, (a band with a superhero gimmick,) and characters created for public service announcement campaigns such as Captain Ozone. I would rather see individual articles on fully notable heroes, and the remaining mentions that can't pass WP:BLP1E should be pruned out. -- RoninBK T C 09:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy was just featured on Boing Boing again so I think media outlets are going to continue to cover any actions he takes. There is already enough content here to satisfy WP:GNG and it seems likely to meet that the number of reliable sources associated with this person are likely to increase. Keep this and do not merge or redirect; this person acts alone and sources do not indicate formal affiliation with other groups. Blue Rasberry 04:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: I actually read up on this subject earlier this week and was surprised to see all the coverage he has received, so he does appear to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. A bit silly? Yes. But that doesn't require removal.--Milowent • 06:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Ample coverage for this guy to exist on his own, I already adding plenty of things to the article. He has been featured in news reports and done interviews, even on talk shows. Also, shouldn't a bot have told me that an article I created was up for deletion? That is strange I got no message. Someone disable the thing? Dream Focus 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as I know there isn't a bot that does that automatically, I know Twinkle does when it nominates a page. It's not actually required to notify the creator when an article is nominated, but it's highly recommended. -- RoninBK T C 13:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Totally unsourced and other than fairly normal academic achievements fails to state importance Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Everybody agrees that there is coverage but there's no consensus on whether or not the coverage is "significant". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable blog that lasted for only two months and received passing media attention for a few days before falling into obscurity. Perhaps it is more appropriate to merge it with Dysfunctional Family Circus, but that's the farthest I believe it should go. ~jcm 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Little Busters!. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. Notability asserted but no reliable sources found either in English or in Japanese using spelling given in the article. Nothing helpful at ja.wikipedia. Request for help from WikiProject Anime and Manga resulted in original creator suggesting deletion. Plad2 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

His work for To Heart was in an anthology manga that has received no coverage in any reliable sources that I am aware of. That manga anthology has nothing to do with the creation of the games, the TV series, or even the primary manga adaptations of the series (it isn't one of the manga adaptations mentioned in the To Heart article). His role in the franchise certainly can't be said to be a significant role in the creation of a notable work. Working on a fringe part of a notable franchise doesn't make someone notable. For Little Busters!, while he worked on a more significant part of the franchise compared to his work for To Heart, his work didn't have anything to do with the creation of the game. Without separate coverage for his manga, it can't be considered a notable work. Calathan (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In manga, the writer and the artist are both notable parts of it. Just like if a movie is notable, then the director, writer, and the main actors of that movie are notable, because they had a major role in it. Whether his work had anything to do with something that was based on the manga, isn't relevant at all. The manga itself was notable, so the writer and artist of it are notable for their work. Dream Focus 09:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Your response has nothing to do with my comment. Of course both the writer and artist are major roles in creating a manga. Being the artist for a notable manga would allow him to pass WP:ARTIST. However, I'm saying the manga isn't notable. You say it is notable, but you give absolutely no reason why you think it is notable. If you know of any sources that would indicate any of the manga he worked on is notable, please provide them. Calathan (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the article for the franchise he worked on is at Little Busters! with an "!". The article Little Busters without an "!" is for something else. Calathan (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Why delete as opposed to redirecting? Given that there is a good quality article that mentions him and his work, why wouldn't we want a redirect in place? Calathan (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Suga Mama (tour band). and deleting history. If someone wants to write a neutral sourced article on the subject then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm not seeing any notability or reliable sources to verify this article CTJF83 chat 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I moved this out of userspace in 2009 because it looked close enough to notability. However, I never kept an eye on it and didn't realize the possible COI. The sources are very thin and notability very small. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I can't find any sources to show he meets the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which is reflected by the state of the article. WP:Neologism and WP:Original research could also be invoked against this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems pure OR, currently fails WP:V, no reliable sources in sight, and not a notable term to begin with. I expect we could find various reliable sources mentioning the term "Christian republic", but unless we have one actually discussing the concept (which I doubt can be found), that doesn't make it worthy of an article. Huon (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. "historical places that might be deemed Christian Republics" - all we need. This is OR. (Also, it provides literally no definition of the term that it's supposedly documenting - it contains both "A Christian Republic is most broadly defined as a republic with a state religion of Christianity" and "A Christian Republic generally does not mean a Republic that merely has a state religion which happens to be Christian.") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Rewrite is a great start. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original essay on a non-notable topic. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that at the time that you wrote that the article looked like this, the question is almost begged: What's "original" and "novel" about 18th century political philosophy? And what's "non-notable" about something that has been noted by four professors and a psychologist? Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think I created it, but I thought it had some historical interest so worked on it.Google BooksGoogle Scholar--T. Anthony (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be chock full of original research. Also, the article is more about why a few particular people think that a Christian reupblic can't exist instead of what a Christian republic actually is. While the topic itself may be notable (let me emphasize the word "may" and the possibility that this subject isn't notable), this article does not prove that it is, and for now it should be deleted. Backtable Speak to me 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Where "a few particular people" are the likes of Niccolò Machiavelli and Alexis de Tocqueville, and the "may be notable" article is not even based upon Machiavelli and de Tocqueville noting the subject directly, but upon (since it has been expanded since even Carrite looked at it) six professors and a psychologist noting that Machiavelli, de Tocqueville , et al. noted it.

      Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our Knowledge (XXG):no original research policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of classical republicanism is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a sheep vote to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion.

      Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article? If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they advanced the same conclusions. Try the book by Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first. (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.)

      Did it not occur to you to wonder why Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you? Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

      • You make good points. I will state that I didn't note the notability of the "few particular people" enough, and that the sources that are supplied do not suggest original research. The article has been improved since the Afd was assigned to the topic, since there used to be zero sources but now there are significantly more than that. I do know what original research is, and I'll also admit that I made the vote in haste. Now that I've retracted from my comments above, they don't necessarily represent my thoughts on OR. The comments that I made in support of its deletion can be entirely dismissed, and I will want to remember not to make votes in haste in the future. At this point, I don't think there is a need for this to be deleted. Backtable Speak to me 03:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: noting that the article had more progress in the 6 hours after its AfD than in the 5 years before it. Neither a neologism (discussion on the topic goes back centuries) nor a random juxtaposition of two words (whole books appear to have been written on the subject), but rather (apparently) a frequent philosophers' thought experiment. HrafnStalk 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a superset of this? religion-based republic or something? To cover the Jewish Republic, several Islamic Republics, and these. (is Sri Lanka a Buddhist Republic?) 65.93.14.29 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hrafn. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral Please don't count my nomination as a "delete" "vote." The article I nominated is gone and has been replaced by one on a totally different topic. The new topic might indeed be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The idea of the Christian Republic touches on a number of important ideas in the history of European political thought, though the interest there is chiefly historical (I acknowledge that some have been accused of trying to create such a state in the USA more recently).
    • That man is or should be governed by a set of natural or God-given laws
    • Government by a priest class or acknowledged people of faith - a theocracy
    • Within a Christian context, that God's purpose can be directly understood from a proper study of scripture and can be applied to all areas of our lives, and may often tend toward fundamentalism
    • The idea of a state religion or church
    • The ideal of republicanism

The ideal of the Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case. John Locke's comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the Levellers and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and Commonwealth a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern Christian Democracy will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas. Yes to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject. AJHingston (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, no remaining 'delete' votes. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Does not meet Notagbility criteria, specifically for creative persons. There is no indication that he 1)is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 2)is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3)has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; nor 4)his work has (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable one-time event. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks occur every day. We can't have an article on each one. Nolelover 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTADVOCATE, and possibly WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOT#OR. Already exists at May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore. Nolelover 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, per nom, and WP:NOT (not a memorial site). WuhWuzDat 18:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per above and due to the majority of the content being NPOV. --Non-Dropframe talk 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Certainly there are more photographers from SC. Seems like a promo page, also violates WP:LC. — Timneu22 · talk 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable intersection. The finest I would go would be an article on Photographers of the American South for those who are known for their work depicting the region. For all we know the one person on the list moved to New York City and became a famous photographer there, so his being from South Carolina would have no relationship to his photography. There is already (I am sure) a category for "People from South Carolina" and one for "Photographers", so put both on his bio. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

My concerns about notability are more in the form of a question than a statement, I don't see mainstream secondary coverage of this ag scientist, however, I'm less clear on the standards required to demonstrate notability based on scientific coverage via scholarly references (WP:ACADEMIC #1), particularly in different fields, see for example, . Both of the refs I've included are primary but probably good enough to WP:V the existence of the guy, but I would like additional opinions on the notability question, etc. Thanks. j⚛e decker 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC), especially not a Russian one - and I can find no reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this word must be in wikipedia At the moment I live in the town of Sitka and this word is widespread there - Y'all are tring to get rid of that Russian guy and i wanna support him. God damn he's right! Besides I wanna add that this word has not only a definition, but an etymology as well. In my personal opinion this is very important(94.24.208.20 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

And a publication that explains etymology is a dictionary - see http://en.wiktionary.org/dictionary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I consider the article should be here - though it needs the completion. I will do my best to protect it. The author must find more info about the word to complete the article. I'll try to help him. Maybe i'll find something...(94.24.208.20 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

Removed the bold on the "should be there" bit, as you can only !vote once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not a notable person. She is an actress, and probably a good one. The article consists only of a list of jobs she has held. In her field this information is automatically given to us by the news media. That in itself does not really say anything about her and the article makes no assertion that she has any importance or influence besides just doing her job. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(its an opinion piece, but from a notable Philip Hensher profissional "opinionator".) Active Banana ( 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable actress for starring in whole series of Cardiac Arrest, Thief Takers and others. This is en encyclopaedia, does she need to be notable outside of her role? Stephenb (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable for her roles in notable productions, not the least of which is EastEnders. ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a household name, but she at least scrapes notability by way of significant coverage (much of it behind paywalls, e.g. ) of her roles over many years. Fences&Windows 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I added sources - some of them definitely give significant coverage, there's at least three stories that focus on her in addition to the other mentions. Fences&Windows 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, Steve Dufour - please don't use "importance or influence" as criteria for deletion again. You should know better. Fences&Windows 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I would prefer that editors had the common sense to not write articles that have no value to the readers, who can get the same information on a show biz database site. 04:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs)
        • Your opinion is that this article has no value - fortunately, your harsh judgement isn't based on policy and therefore carries no weight in this argument. I would prefer that editors found something better to do with their time than nominating perfectly reasonable articles for deletion, but we can't all have what we wish for. Fences&Windows 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure it's preferred that we have perfect articles right out the gate... but it's why we call them newbs. Per improvements made since first nominated, both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are met. Just goes to show that what can be improved through regular editing, is never a decent call for deletion. Schmidt, 07:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My nomination did not mention any imperfection in the article. It is fine for what it is, raw data on a person's career. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.... but everything on Knowledge (XXG) is "raw data" and available elswhere. The difference is in how that "raw data" is presented contextually. At least least here we arrange it encyclopedically, neutrally, and provide sourcing. The article as nominated, began doing just that... giving contextual information on the individual's background with a paragraph on the highlights of a career that allowed a presumption of her meeting WP:ENT. After improvements, it is cleaner, more encyclopedic, and better sourced to show the individual meeting WP:GNG as well. Schmidt, 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 AFC Asian Cup schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a total content fork to 2011 AFC Asian Cup. Every date information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a seperate article for schedule. Article is unsourced too. Armbrust Contribs 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true but the question has to be asked, why allow one and not the other? Should the World Cup schedule be put up for AfD as well? Bettia (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The World Cup schedule page doesn't contain any additional information when compared to the World Cup parent article, so yes, it should probably be put up for AfD - however, I suggest we wait to see the outcome of this discussion before we do so. GiantSnowman 11:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Considered redirecting the article to Drum Mania but he is not mentioned in that article. Does not meet WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Marion D. Thorpe, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questioned through PROD, but this seems worth discussing through AFD in order to assess community consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - either hoax or original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Abadi's first theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is pure original research--a novel mathematical theory. As far as I can tell it was created by a high school student, and has never been published. Knowledge (XXG) does not allow the publishing of original work per WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The results of this theorem are easily verifiable. In a matter of minutes it can be confirmed that there are no errors. This article was published, although not in this exact form, in the magazine Prime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abadistheorem (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First, "original research" has nothing to do with whether or not something is correct--it's whether or not the information has been published in a reliable source. Can you please provide more information about the publication? What type of publication is that? Is it a peer reviewd publication? What is the exact date of publishing, along with other info like volume and number of publication? In addition, even if we can verify that this is not original research, then we'll need to demonstrate that this topic meets our requirements for notability--to do so, you'll need to show that this theorem has been discussed by other mathematicians and found to be useful and important in the field. So then the question is when and where was this theorem cited and discussed? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to the lack of any reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

According to the article he plays for Rajnavy Rayong F.C. in the Thai Premier League, which meets WP:NFOOTY but I have not been able to verify it. Unable to find any coverage of this individual, the article says he wears #10, but the Rajnavy Rayong F.C. page lists a Brazilian player with that number, the article does not give the Thai spelling of his name making a search near impossible. So, at this point the article falls far short of WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete As the nom found, I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources on which to note this player's participation in the TPL. In addition to the usual suspects, I also checked the Internet Archive and WebCite for the player roster at the TPL page, and found that neither archive covered that site. --j⚛e decker 18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) (Left at delete after reviewing Bettia's source, which in no way can be considered a WP:RS. --j⚛e decker 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC))
  • Comment about this reference: the subject's name is not in the main post, it is in a user added comment to the main post (unless I'm completely missing something). This should not be seen as reliable. !Voters should look at the ref before making a decision. J04n(talk page) 12:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

20 Years After The Zombie Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, non-notable work of fiction. The book is self-published by the user who uploaded the article (author's name and username are the same), and despite their assertion that having the book published at lulu.com and available for sale at Amazon is grounds for notability I can assure you (having done both myself) that it isn't. The book title and author's name gets precisely six unique hits on google, two of which are Knowledge (XXG), two are lulu and the other two are amazon. role 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. only 2 comments, but this the subject is still very clearly not notable DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

No indications that this minor league and high school sports announcer and sportscaster meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I cannot find any independent confirmation of this film - the web site in the article doesn't work and Google turns up nothing. Earlier versions of the article were already the subject of speedy deletes. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable biography; Sources is not enough to support its notability, since the artist is only making recognition online Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 08:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

It seems this article was subject to puffery orchestrated by its PR department and repeated here on wiki, whether intentional or not. After weighing the strength of the various positions it seems fairly clear that consensus is to delete the article at this time. Before I go, here's a little something for User:AkankshaG for adding a massive wall of text which I just had to read in order to close this, only to find that it was largely unrelated to the discussion of the notability of this company and the suitability of this article on Knowledge (XXG):

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ciplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by Ciplex executive for promotional purposes. Recommended deletion per wp:coi wp:npov wp:soapbox Phearson (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.
What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Knowledge (XXG) to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”
Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.
I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Knowledge (XXG), citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Knowledge (XXG). Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.
User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.
I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.
Lastly, I’ll say this. Knowledge (XXG) has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Knowledge (XXG) and off-Knowledge (XXG): That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. "h monthly" - who or what is this? A style magazine? It's hard to judge reliability of something that doesn't have an "about us" page and/or wikipedia article.
  2. Various "Inc. 5000" spotlights and listings. Does not establish notability, though helpful for filling in an article.
  3. Articles talking about "first multi-touch website using Silverlight". Many, many articles linked. These are all syndicated copies of a TechCruch article or reblogs about the article. This is the what comes closest to satisfying WP:ORG and WP:GNG in my mind since the Washington Post syndicated the TechCrunch article. But it's hardly sufficient, and "first X of Y in Z" is pretty threadbare- by way of analogy, I could have been the fastest 3rd grade runner under 65 pounds at my school, but that's hardly showing a depth of continued coverage.
  4. Likewise, winning many various small awards doesn't hold any weight. Might be worth mentioning.
  5. Finally, running Von Dutch's website might hold merit, though nobody (in journalistic circles) is talking about that being a big deal.
tedder (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • None of the decent sourcing mentioned here is referenced in the article so the sourcing is by assertion and therefore a weak argument. Please can someone voting keep list the sources they are referring to so they can be evaluated? Thanks. (This is an alternative to it being deleted for unverified sourcing and then undeleted and relisted once someone dumps them on my talk page :-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)}
  • Delete. This is an interactive agency that provides creative, technology, and marketing services. Ciplex specializes in web design, web development, branding, search engine optimization, social media and custom marketing campaigns for businesses. Inclusion in "top 500" lists and the like obviously does not confer notability on a business; nor do trade awards, given their proliferation. A large number of the "separate" references in "multiple" sources appear to be the same story. The rest of the sources would appear to be trade blogs, online profiles, and other self-published or low circulation sources. The bottom line is that there's no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance; building the "World's First Multi-Touch Website Using Silverlight" does not cut the mustard, no matter how mightily Microsoft's publicity department has labored to promote Silverlight, and that appears to be what we're looking at in that coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:CORP at the moment, because the only significant reliable coverage are about the first multi-touch website (whatever that is) but I can't find anything actually about the company. People are correct to say it has been mentioned in multiple RSs but, they don't directly discuss the company and therefore we should not have an article on the company at present. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete unable to find any RSs discussing this company. most of the sources used to reference this article are actually just one piece that was written in the tech section of the washington post and subsequently linked or copied around to various sites. and the washington post article gives nothing but a passing mention about the company, rather focussing more on the "multi-touch" technology. don't see any other RSs justifying this articles existence presently, most other references given are user generated websites. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This WP:BLP has been unsourced since 2004! The subject appears to be mid-level leadership (president of the party's Quebec wing) within a minor Canadian political party and who appears to have never won an election, a status that doesn't seem likely to meet most editors' standards of "inherent notability". There is a general lack of reliable, independent sources discussing the subject. — Scientizzle 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious consensus--lack of evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non notable company with no secondary sources, edited by coi editor and his sockpuppet Teapotgeorge 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Please check out: WP:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Thanks. This is an outstanding article. One of the best written dictionary entry type articles I have ever read on WP. It is far better than most on Wiktionary. However it is still in violation of WP's not a dictionary policy. WP is not a dictionary of English, Arabic, or any other language -- no matter how important or interesting the word is. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is turning into a policy debate: Is it sufficient to satisfy an SNG without satisfying GNG? Not my call here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found having searched in both English and Japanese. As request for assistance at WikiProject Anime and Manga has also come up blank with a suggestion of non-notability. Plad2 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the role of key animator with that of the animation director. A large number of key animators will work on a single anime (for instance, Anime News Network's encyclopedia lists over 100 key animators for Honey and Clover). Each individual key animator does not have a lot of creative input into the creation of the anime. The decisions as to what goes into each frame would mainly be made by other people like the director, animation director, and character designer. Calathan (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't need third party coverage, if it passes other guidelines. WP:ARTIST Dream Focus 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen WP:ARTIST? Do you not believe the requirements have been met? Dream Focus 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
All subsections of WP:BIO must first pass WP:BASIC, the subsections are additional criteria. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. One does not need to pass BASIC first, as meeting WP:GNG is only one of the ways that notability might be established. All WP:BASIC states is that if GNG is met, then notability is presumed. The WP:BIO#Additional criteria, such as WP:ARTIST are offered as additional means by which we might determine notability in the absence of meeting the GNG. They are not reliant on the GNG being met first, else there would be no need for such additional criteria to even exist. But even without use of animenewsnetwork encyclopedia, we might still rely on screen credits of the films themselves to verify his particpation. And searches can be extended to include the films themselves, so that his participation in those projects might be further confirmed. And in combating our unfortunate systemic bias, input from Japanese Wikipedians with access to non-English sources would be helpful as well. Schmidt, 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
To DreamFocus' initial comment: unfortunately, the guidelines at WikiProject Anime and Manga re information from AnimeNews Network state that ...because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Knowledge (XXG) standards. For Anime and Manga artists, I always search first for sources via their very useful anime and manga custom google search but came up blank this time. I also consulted the folks over at The Anime and Manga Project, as noted in the nomination. --Plad2 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For clarity, I have also searched using the Japanese spelling of the subject's name (plus Google translate) and come up blank. If we were able to verify the facts in the article with at least one reliable source, that would be a first step. Establishing notability per CREATIVE/ARTIST/AUTHOR is another. I have seen nothing yet from a reliable source which meets or verifies the "significant" or "multiple independent reviews" requirements of CREATIVE.--Plad2 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
None of his films have ever been reviewed? Wow. And here I thought the Japanese were nuts for anime. Schmidt, 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they have not been reviewed. Just that I haven't found reviews in any RS yet and there is a limit to how long it is reasonable to spend searching (especially when one doesn't read Japapese).--Plad2 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I won't bore you, it's fairly obvious on reading this which way it has to be closed. We can always discuss this again later, but this debate has failed to reach any consensus. Courcelles 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just noticing that the person recommending deletion made other articles one of his main arguments. So it seems relevant to note that there are BOTH a Criticism of Islam and a Criticism of Islamism article and neither has been suggested for deletion. That easily could be seen as a POV fork of Islam. Do you see this deletion as a precedent for those? Let's at least be consistent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Carol, you are surely aware that you are comparing a religion, a theologically inspired political movement and a sovereign state? In other words, there are no forks, and the articles are not epistemologically related. Although the scope of the later article is yet to be clearly defined, so there may be some analogies as it develops Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that wikipedia defines Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" also makes the religious angle relevant. However, to make another argument using article comparisons, if those two criticism of Islam articles exist, plus Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Christianity articles, how can there not be an article criticizing this or any other state, assuming sufficient WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? You suggested that a deletion of this article should be a precedent for deleting articles criticising Islam and Islamism. At that rate there will be established an effective regime of censorship against any criticism of anyone and anything.
Now you are arguing that there should be articles offering criticism of any other state, and for that matter political philosophy or religion?
Aside from the controversial nature of the assumption there are "three Abrahamic religions", there should not be any impediments to articles describing valid criticism of anything, provided logical approaches and methods (criticism is a form of logic) are used; for example Criticism of MacDonalds Corporation, or Criticism of Hollywood film content, etc. The Arts has a slew of such articles under Arts criticism: Architecture criticism, Visual art criticism, Dance criticism, Film criticism, Literary criticism, Music journalism, Television criticism, and Theatre criticism. Then there are more intra-disciplinary articles such as Criticism of American foreign policy, Criticisms of Salvador Allende. Which is why I find the attempt to delete this article rather strange Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was confusing. Just making clear that using the lack of other criticism articles to excuse deleting a criticism article ridiculous, when there are criticism articles about more sensitive topics (with obviously overlap with Israel in the Criticism of Judaism case). And looking at Abrahamic religions, I see there are more than three; my error. Yeah, wikipedia for teaching me something everyday!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Criticizing Israel isn't equivalent to thinking it shouldn't exist, for God's sake. If you think there should be articles for criticism of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, et al., create them. Roscelese (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
not entirely sure what god or arguing for the non-existence of Israel has to do with anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You claim that it's a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but they're not the same thing. Read WP:POVFORK - a POV fork is "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)...developed according to a particular point of view." Your claim that it is one only makes sense if you believe that any criticism of any Israeli government policy is equivalent to suggesting that Israel should not exist, which is patently ridiculous. Roscelese (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
i never claimed Criticism of Israel is a POVFORK because its the same thing as Anti-zionism and i still have no idea what you're talking about regarding the non-existence of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, you sure didn't advocate for the deletion of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism. How could anyone even imagine that you would do that?
I've voted; I'm done here. Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
i advocated for the deletion of of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but not because they are the "same thing."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is a content fork and synth, and also an unprecendented article, insofar as the same kind of article could as well be made for most countries in the world. Avaya1 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:Attack, one grows tried of political advocacy masquerading as "encyclopedic content". Any issue worthy of criticism already has its own article dealing with the specific issue at hand. Poliocretes (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The Anti-Zionism article is a mess as it includs a vast amount of material that should be in this article - the clearest examples are the 6 references to "criticism of Israel" within the AZ article. Anti-Zionism is about the ideology supporting the existence of the country, this is about the criticism the country has had to face in relation to policy decisions. This criticism is highly notable - as shown by ghits and all the facts shown on the page such as disproportionate UN criticism, PR against criticism a big political focus within Israel, innumerable WP:RS books and media articles written on the topic. The facts that other countries do not have such articles, that the article doesn't already exist, or that the article 'could' be used for advocacy are not valid arguments. WP has "Criticism of" articles for the three major Abrahamic religions - editors have worked hard and these have not become coatracks. This topic is highly notable and is needed in order to house a lot of information incorrectly placed within Anti-Zionism.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to Keep To be clearer, the title, Israel, represents a country, which means a region within a sphere of influence of a government. If the government is wrong, then, criticizes the ruling party such as criticism of Israel government. If the practice of people in Israel is wrong then, criticize the practice. There is by far, no way to criticize Israel which is far more general term. Soewinhan (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Soewinhan, that is incorrect - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel. As you will no doubt be aware, a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Re It is a state, but a state has many variations. Not only a government represents a state, but also people, culture, and so on. The title is not clear about what the article is criticizing. I will agree with Criticism Of Israel Government. For example, if you want to criticize Military Junta of Burma, you can't title criticism of Burma of course.Soewinhan (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with Oncenawhile. On the other hand, I do see the point of the "oppose" editors, namely that this is a POV fork of the Israel article (I'm not why someone suggested that it is a POV fork of Zionism .. they are not even close). And in an ideal world, perhaps they would be merged. But the Israel article contains no mention whatsoever of alleged discrimination, racism, apartheid, or human rights issues. None. Yet criticism of Israel is a very, very widely discussed topic - both by primary sources (critics) and secondary sources (Dershowitz, et al). So the absence of "criticism" material in the Israel article is a significant oversight. That oversight, as a practical matter, cannot and will not be remedied by a merger. Therefore, an independent "criticism of" article is appropriate. The existing articles Anti-Zionism and Human rights in Israel are not replacments for a broader "Criticism of .." article, because they focus on narrower sub-topics. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - essentially Criticism has been around since ancient times as a discipline at one time taught as Rhetoric. I took the liberty of moving the article to International criticism of Israel, lest it require disambiguation from prophetic criticism of Israel provided in Tanakh. I'm not sure why Anti-Zionism got mentioned because that pre-existed the state of Israel. However, anyone who has access to the mass media, and Internet (a must for editing Knowledge (XXG)!) would be aware that criticism of Israel, and other states around the globe, is a fact. That no articles have been written for other states is perhaps indicative of the reception such articles are likely to receive from editors representing the states being criticised. I'll say nothing about criticism of Saudi Arabia, but criticism of Sudan has been so obvious, that to miss it would be inexcusable. South Africa has been criticised before and after the end of South Africa under apartheid, while Germany certainly had its share of criticism last century, and this, if only for its economic policy during the global economic crisis. Its just that these issues have not been brought together under same rubric because criticism of Israel has been so wide-ranging, and directed from so many different quarters. One can say that there is even an Israel-bashing industry.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As per above, I am strongly supporting keep, and I agree with Koakhtzvigad's improvements to the article. However, I was just checking the 'what links here' to the article, and noticed that on 23:34, 29 December 2006 a previous version of the "Criticism of Israel" article was deleted by Mel Etitis (see ), but no further information is available and I cannot seem to find a copy of the deleted article or the AfD discussion. Can anyone provide further info here, as might be useful to ensure that when this discussion is closed, it really is closed. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a very clear case of a POV fork, created following this discussion where a majority of editors felt that a similarly-titled article section was inappropriate. There does not appear to be any purpose to this article other than to give a different slant on information that is either contained or could be contained in the other two articles on the same topic (if you don't feel that this is the case, then please give an example of the type of information you think needs this article to exist). On top of which, the article would be an obvious drama-magnet. Keep votes here seem to be based simply on WP:ITEXISTS or on the argument that related articles are not good enough but for some reason can't be improved, which seems tanatamount to saying that you want to a new space to push a POV that has not so far prevailed elsewhere. Sincerely hope that a closing admin will see through this.--FormerIP (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not number of editors. Your comment looks more like gaming than logic - with respect to your challenge in brackets, many examples are cited above - as a dissenting editor you are welcome to provide specific examples of how the core info in the article could fit in to the other articles you reference. Your disparaging of the keep votes is absurd in light of the detailed commentary from supporting editors above - all the arguments have been set out clearly and are based on WP:N, and you have not attempted to counter any of them (nor have any of the other opposing editors). Your reference to the parallel discussion is helpful - there is consensus from both sides in that discussion that the topic is notable - the only (and ongoing) debate is with respect to how much focus it warrants within the main Israel article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Daily care: Yes, you have a good point there - there are already three articles in WP that do describe the vast majority of criticism: Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, and Anti-Zionism. But there are a few reasons why a dedicated article would be useful to readers: (1) the Israel article has no mention whatsoever of those topics; (2) there is no "criticism of Israel" category to link those various articles; and (3) there are several other topics that are not yet present in any article in WP, such as (a) Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism; (b) Criticism of Israel, manifested as comparisons with Nazi Germany; (c) Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism (outside of New Antisemitism context); and (d) Criminalization of criticism of Israel. What article would those four topics go into in WP, if not this article? I supposes they could all be shoe-horned into the New Antisemitism article, but that seems like a stretch. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
To add to this, there are at least 15 articles which contain information relevant to this page: (1) Anti-Zionism; (2) Human rights in Israel and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories; (3) Relationships between Jewish religious movements; (4) Israeli Settlements; (5) Economy of the Palestinian territories; (6) Israeli-occupied territories; (7) Palestinian refugees; (8) New antisemitism; (9) Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; (10) Public diplomacy (Israel); (11) Loyalty oath#Israel; (12) Israel and the apartheid analogy; (13) International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict; (14) Boycotts of Israel; (15) Disinvestment from Israel
There is no article which connects them despite the fact that the sources provided prove the notability of the Criticism of Israel beyond any doubt (no editor has questioned or provided a challenge to the sources). Therefore there is no article which states that Criticism of Israel is a highly important topic, important to academics, the government of Israel and the people of Israel - as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think creating the category to link those pages together sounds like a fair idea. As to Noleander's specific questions, I'd say that a) belongs to Antisemitism, b) may not be notable, c) is the same thing as a), and d) is not notable or (if this is the case in Israel) goes to Human rights in Israel. User Oncenawhile doesn't need to reply to every comment in this discussion (see WP:BLUDGEON) as editors' arguments can speak for themselves. (don't take this in an unkind way, I also occasionally have that tendency) --Dailycare (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Move to Criticism of Israel Government No country has article about criticism. People need to see Israel and Zionism are different. I mean Israel does not represent Zionism nor any other country does. If the practice is wrong, criticize the practice rather than a country. If the government is wrong, then, criticize the ruling party. Please note that by titling this article as criticism of Israel, you are criticizing not only a particular practice, religion, government or race, you are criticizing everything about Israel as a whole. Soewinhan (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "No country has article about criticism" - see discussion above, this is not a valid argument, and even if it was, WP:RS suggest Criticism of Israel is highly notable compared to other countries
  • Re. I am not objecting notablility of criticism. I am objecting the general term, using only Israel to criticize just a ruling body of a country. You are criticizing a government of a country, and not entire country. So, the term is not definite. Soewinhan (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "People need to see Israel and Zionism are different" - agree, hence Anti-Zionism is just a subsection in this topic
  • Re the rest of your comment, see above - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel, and a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. The 20 million ghits referred to above confirm this is standard practice. More importantly though - no one is criticising anyone - the article describes the criticism as a phenomenon and no more. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Response. See above. You need to take note that the term State (Israel) is vaguely defined as ruling body. For example, if you want to criticize Burma junta, you can't title Criticism of Burma ,of course. Soewinhan (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The 2 million ghits (now 2.5m if you hit the findsources button) would disagree with you. But since consensus is about compromise, perhaps your suggestion above is the right thing to do, but we would need a redirect from "Criticism of Israel". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. Soewinhan (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Soewinhan: I agree that Criticism of Israeli government would be an okay title. It is certainly better than the current International criticism of Israel, because many significant critics are within Israel (peace movement, etc). Another variant would be Criticism of Israeli government policies, but maybe that is too verbose? --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, Israelis criticize the Israeli Government for all the same reasons that any other citizens criticize their governments, but by far the greatest volume of criticism is international. However, since Israel is also a name of a people, and they are also criticized, it seems to me that there is no need to add government, but simply reflect this in the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Every nation state should have such an article. It could use some cleanup, but a noteworthy topic that can't be adequately covered just as a small section of the larger article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep With so much criticism of Israel appearing in so many articles it is very useful to have a page which organizes it all in one place. I see it like a disambiguation page in that it can and would be used to help people find all the other less formal criticism of Israel pages like, the 15 pages that Oncenawhile listed just above the relisting line.

Also, I agree the title should change to simply 'Criticism of the Israeli government'. Passionless (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In a legal sense Israel has the same identity as Knowledge (XXG), Federal Reserve, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a corporation), or any number of public personalities which at national levels are represented by the statutory corporation. By allowing the article, Knowledge (XXG) therefore seeks to allow a public setting out of the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) in any such process

That so few such articles exist in Knowledge (XXG) may suggest that although it is open for editing by anyone, the available material is not open for anyone to read, being subject to Knowledge (XXG)'s own censorship Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Betsy: Those are good points you raise. The essential problem is that the article Israel does not (and - as a practical matter - will never) include a summary of the vast amount of criticism (human rights, etc). Becuse the Israel article will not contain such a summary (there was one once, but it was deleted from the article) the second-best alternative is a stand-alone article such as Criticism of Israel. You mention the possibility of creating a new category "Criticsm of Israel", and that is not a bad idea. However, there is a large amount of textual material on the topic, such as Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If Criticism of Israel were deleted, into which article should that material go? And (whatever the answer is) is that best for the readers? --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In case helpful, attached is a list of the currently existing articles entitled "Criticism of". Given the high notability (as set out with sources above and not challenged), "Criticism of the Israeli Government" would not be out of place amongst the existing precedents.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Minor usage note: There are three similar terms, and their usage (ranked form most-used to least-used) is: (1) Israeli govenment; (2) Government of Israel; and (3) Israel government. I think the latter is discouraged because Israel is primarily a noun, not an adjective. (PS: I would not object to the rename, as detailed above in the identical rename proposal by user Soewinhan). --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. International criticism of Israel is not the same as Anti-Zionism. Biophys (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep but Noindex/Nonsearchable until issues are resolved Really, something of the sort needs to exist, and admittedly, the deleting of an article with this name will make both Knowledge (XXG) and Israel look really bad (the media will eat this up.) That being said, the article is a mess, there are allegations of large sections being word for word copies (made at the undeletion request page,) and the article suffers from NPOV and organizational issues as well. Getting rid of this is bad, leaving it as is is just as bad. What I say we do find a couple of neutral editors with track records in good content creation, have them fix this mess, and in the mean time, noindex this so that it's not the top hit in a google search (as this clearly isn't up to Knowledge (XXG) standards.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sven: I think the "undeletion request page" you are talking about is here. That discussion is about a 2006 version of an article with the identical name "Criticism of Israel". That previous version was, apparently, a duplicate of some other article, and so it was deleted. The comment about "large sections being word for word copies" is referring to that 2006 article, not to the current article being discussed here. I don't believe this article has any duplicate text. That said, I agree with your suggestion that this article would benefit from improvements to its content and organization. --Noleander (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is less than a month old, of course it needs alot more work done, but I'm sure the article will grow quickly with all the interest in it. Passionless (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The article "will grow quickly" as POV-pushers from both sides descend, and any reader who stumbles upon it at moment X is likely to find it in some jumbled state with unbalanced WP:POV for one side or the other and content FORKs galore, since most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places. This article should be dis-aggregated to existing articles; the SYNTH POINT of creating one humongous "criticism of israel" is to point fingers at how much criticism exists, not a valid Knowledge (XXG) goal. To clarify, I am NOT saying that is the goal of any people voting "Keep" here, but I fear that SYNTH will be the result of keeping this article. betsythedevine (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Betsy: You write "most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places". However, there is quite a bit of material in this article this is not covered in any other WP article, such as: Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If this article were deleted, which articles would that material go into? And would spreading the material across several articles be better than a centralized article that follows the WP:Summary style guideline? And how can SYNTH be a concern, when notable authors such as Dershowitz explicitly discuss all of these topics in their widely read books on Israel? --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-Semitism and Human_rights_in_Israel articles seem a much better home for the material you mention instead of creating a FORK with some stuff there and other stuff elsewhere. I would also urge interested editors to read the very thoughtful essay WP:CRITICISM. It is easy to find reputable authors writing in WP:RS who are strongly arguing for some particular POV, for or against Israel, so just about any laundry list can probably be found out in the wild. Just from my experience here in Knowledge (XXG), it seems to me this article will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, an embarrassment to the project, and a source of endless ANIs, SPIs, and other trainwreck wasting of the admins' time. Anyway, I respect your different opinion Noleander and I am grateful for your WP:CIVIL expression of your arguments too. betsythedevine (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Betsy,
  • In the WP:CRITICISM essay, there is an example provided relating to the 2008 Summer Olympics - this situation is a good corollary of that (albeit more extreme since no mention in the main article - see Noleander's comment at 02:02 / 2 January 2011 above), and therefore this article is required according to the essay
  • With respect to your use of the emotive word "embarrassment", the point that Sven Manguard makes above about this situation being interpreted as a whitewash poses a much bigger risk of embarrassment to us all
  • I would appreciate your views as to where explanation of the overall phenomenon of Criticism of the Israeli government would go without this article (a topic highly notable and important to academics / Israel Government / Israelis, as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor)
Thanks also to you for your consistently WP:CIVIL and nice tone. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick reply since I've already said so much -- I'd prefer a list. By the way, I came here via a link from Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Animal_conspiracy_theories_involving_Israel, in my opinion a POV problem of opposite sign--I'm also voting to delete that one. Funny, I see myself as an inclusionist more than a deletionist but what I like to see included is more information and less argumentation. betsythedevine (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: and create articles on criticism of all sovereign nations. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just trying to think how that would work...wouldn't it be more manageable to have separate articles on specific policies being criticized? Such as "US policy on immigration", "US policy on nuclear weapons", "US policy on capital punishment", etc. with each article explaining the policy and also including criticism of the policy. (I use the US not Israel as an example because I know more about my own country's policies.) If you do the thought experiment of cobbling together the criticism sections of all the very different criticisms people make of US policy in just those 3 very different areas, it seems to me the result will be a less encyclopedic and less useful article. By analogy, the criticisms people make of Israel's policy on settlements are very different from the criticisms people make that Israel should not have been created in the first place. Surely it would be more informative to put the former criticisms into an article that discusses Israel's policy on settlements, and the latter into a different article that discusses the reasons Israel was created where and when it was. betsythedevine (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Neptune is the second person in this AfD that has suggested that it is a good idea for all countries to have a "Criticism of.." article in WP. That particular suggestion is interesting, but should probably be discussed at a more prominent location (village pump?) than this AfD. Personally, I see some merit to it, because (1) WP's indexing/searching capabilities are very limited, and "Criticism of" articles that follow WP:summary style can help readers navigate; (2) Although categories and lists could provide a similar service, they do not provide for textual explanation, detail, or context; and (3) the main country articles should contain an overview of the criticisms, but instead tend to be puff pieces that read like Chamber of commerce brochures. For those reasons, Neptune's suggestion is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Note there is Category:Israel and Category:Politics_of_Israel one of which - whatever happens with this article - probably needs a "Criticism of Israel" subcategory for all criticism, external and internal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I'm looking forwards to Criticisms of Saudi Arabia and Criticisms of Syria. I might decide they're all cruft and vote to delete them all. Not for the moment, though. Templar98 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for the creation of criticism pages for other nations, the case of a criticism of Israel page is akin to pages such as Common misunderstandings of genetics and Objections to evolution. These pages were created, and kept, because of the need for a page solely devoted to it. While the average scientific theory, such as gravity, may have objections/criticism the extent is not great enough to warrant a seperate page, though certain theories, like evolution do garner enough criticism to warrant a seperate page for criticism. As mentioned by Oncenawhile previously, criticism of Israel recieves a massively amount of ghits compared to similar searches of other nations. The extent of criticism of Israel certainly warrants its own page, while most other nations criticisms are either much smaller, that the page would be a stub, or a majority deals with one specific area, like the US and Criticism of American foreign policy. Israel has a large number of pages on specific criticisms of it, and does require a page to link them together in the same way that Objections to evolution is mostly just a collection of summaries of pages which criticize evolution. Passionless (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And just so no one retails with this, I am not saying that the criticism of Israel article should exist because these others do, I'm just saying this article has the same function as these others. Passionless (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy Break and Reslist

We are nowhere close to a consensus on this as far as I can see, so I'm breaking and relisting. Let's see if we can come to a conclusion this go around.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I feel that this article is very warranted, given the amount of controversy surrounding Israel. There is absolutley no good reason why an article of this quality should simply be deleted.--Metalhead94 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep—The article as it stands has a lot of problems to resolve before it reaches a satisfactory standard, but I think it is a valid topic that can be maintained separately from Anti-Zionism. The lack of existence of comparable articles is no reason to delete this article; it is a reason to create those other articles. Every country has some dirty laundry that needs airing, including those opposed to Israel. See also Category:Criticisms.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Put individual criticisms into articles where they are in context, so that for example arguments against Israel's settlement policies are in context with Israel's position supporting those policies. Create a list article Controversies about Israel to link to those criticism sections. Note that a list article can have introductory material to clarify what is in or out of it, but I believe doing it this way will create less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, we will avoid future problems of WP:FORK. Note, I changed my !vote, which was "Delete" above. betsythedevine (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep-for my reasons given just above the relist line, and the numerous other arguments in favour of the article given by others. Passionless (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Request for Admin to Close Debate This debate has run out of steam. I'm not sure there are any meaningful new arguments either way - there has been substantive debate, with 22 editors presenting disparate opinions supported by policy:
    • First listing votes: 5 keep vs 6 delete/redirect
    • Second listing new votes: 8 keep/rename vs 1 delete (since changed to merge)
    • Third listing new votes: (so far): 2 keep
This is as close to consensus as we can ever hope to achieve on such a sensitive topic. And anyway, a quick look at the the other AfD discussions for "Criticism of" articles here shows whilst many such discussions have a mix of votes, no such "Criticism of" article has ever been deleted if it was well sourced with notable substance which could not all fit in the parent article (in this case Israel).
A second relisting is wasting time, and more importantly the AfD tag on the article is discouraging improvements - the article was only 10 days old when it was nominated for deletion and needs more work.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I second the motion to close and keep. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Australian Research Council religion journals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a list of religion journals copied from an Excel file on the website of the Australian Research Council (ARC). The list is composed by the ARC, but the journals are further unconnected to the ARC (which does not seem to publish journals themselves). -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Crownest and per Talk:List of Australian Research Council religion journals#Copyvio?. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Dubious notability and none of the sources appear to be reliable. Laurent (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I'm not wildly enthusiastic about saying so. It's a high school, of sorts, and high schools are generally presumed to be notable. Among other things, this school fields teams that play other high schools in the area, so its name turns up on the sports pages of area newspapers. (I found several sports-related ghits in Google News archives, together with ghits related to personnel and former students.) I judge the http://www.strugglingteens.com/ source to be fairly reliable (although most of the article was sourced to the school's own statements about itself). One interesting thing I found (not to be included for various WP:BLP reasons) was an editorial in a national newspaper in which the publisher said he had a child attending this school. I've done a little bit of cleanup on the article -- more is needed. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm changing my opinion. Earlier I said "delete" because I consider that the automatic-notability rule only applies to diploma-granting institutions, and kids are only at this institution for a maximum of one year. However it turns out that the ranch can grant a diploma if the kid was already a senior upon entering: "Credit earned at DRA will transfer to high schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States and internationally. Students near completion of their graduation requirements can complete and receive an accredited High School Diploma while at DRA." That's a pretty weak reed to hang notability on, but combined with Orlady's findings of coverage I think it may be enough. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Tagged for A7 but claims some notability, procedural nomination as a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Subject material not notable (it's just one exhibition at a gallery that holds several each year). Contains much original research, cites no sources, orphaned for over two years NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software package. Coverage at t3n does not appear to amount to significant coverage, merely a blurb. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree that there is nothing in the article that is enough to establish notability and I have searched and cannot find coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Apparently non-notable software. One EL is the freshmeat page and the other EL simply quotes two sentences from the freshmeat page. Google returns a handful of single-paragraph results but they all appear to copy & paste either developer blurb or this article. There does not appear to be the in-depth discussion by independent sources which is needed to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing a Google search on "linux petroleum accounting software" returns this first on the list and while a few other petroleum accounting packages are listed as well, if you go to their sites none of them have a Linux version and none are freeware. So being that this is the only Linux and only freeware petroleum accounting software would seem to be somewhat notable. The developer indicated that this software package was initially released in September 2010 so that may be why independent articles can't be found in the Internet yet.Skykt (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Only being released for four months does certainly explain the lack of sources, especially for such a niche market as this. But perhaps that is proof that it is WP:TOOSOON for Locbook to have a Knowledge (XXG) article. -- RoninBK T C 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Won a Radio Disney contest, released an EP on a non-notable label. Sources are entirely tied to the winning of the contest, with no further notability beyond that. Borderline case, probably, but I'm tempted to say she just fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This entry is an opinion on artist, however, shows no premise to delete Jasmine Sagginario as a music artist. The article above states she has released an EP on a non-notable label...The album was distributed through Sony/Provident. Please see provided link below:

http://www.providentmusic.com/pgs/artists.details.aspx?ArtistCode=JASM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminepedia (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
could you please define good standard? There is no way this article meets WP:GA. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lin Biao. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Notability based on one event only - and even that appears to be based on speculation as to the possibility that she inadvertently alerted the authorities to her parents' plot against Mao. Subject is covered fully at Lin Biao. Also long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. Sources could be found if a decision is made to keep. Plad2 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd found that source as well (it was one of the sources I mention which could be found to establish that she exists), but it doesn't really help establish notability in her own right. If you can provide more details and sources for the "well-known in China as a historian" to a level which meets WP:PROF that would be an enormous help.--Plad2 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I found a Chinese source which goes into more detail about her involvement in the Modern China Research Dept of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, but I don't know it satisfies WP:RS.--PCPP (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The Chinese source from User:PCPP is user-edited and says it's based on (but doesn't mirror) the Chinese WP entry, I'd say that it therefore isn't a WP:RS. --j⚛e decker 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lin Biao, if that can be cleaned up to make the redirect less confusing, or Delete-- unless better sources can be found for independent notability outside, per BLP1E. --j⚛e decker 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Was closed as redirect before, but with only one person taking part. Closer has suggested it be renominated as a user is refusing to accept the outcome of the first AfD. I have no opinion on the notability GedUK  20:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - if the "keep" commenters could provide reliable sources to show that this article meets WP:GNG (and, ideally add them to the article) and if all participants could provide full, policy-referencing rationales for their !vote, I would be very grateful. Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the "delete" commenters could just take a couple of seconds to click on the word "news" in the nomination and look at the first few articles found I would be very grateful. The only possible way not to find reliable sources is not to bother to look for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the issue of "keep" vs "delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Any OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion mainly because it is an article about a word, in violation of WP:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. A more serious problem is with WP:Living persons policies, since it in effect is labeling quite a number of people as being dishonest because they assume Cockney accents to play roles in movies or TV or for other reasons. The article was kept in 2005 but that seems to be mostly "I like it" votes without these issues being brought up at all. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note If the article just explains what a "Mockney" is it is just a dictionary definition. If it gives examples (of living persons) then it is slandering those people based on someone else's opinion. Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure calling someone a 'Mockney' is actually slander, but I can se the BLP problem. Definitely a word for a dictionary, but not for Knowledge (XXG): unencyclopedic, innit ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This is far from (and could be even further) a dictionary definition, as it extends to cover the cultural implications of the label. See also Plastic Paddy, as an extensive example of how such a subject can be treated.
A merge to Cockney would be utterly wrong. Mockney is the antithesis of Cockney, has almost no geographical overlap with it and is of recent origin. The BLP issue is trivial, because we will of course maintain our usual standards of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep article is more than a dicdef and it is an encyclopedic subject. victor falk 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

person of questionable notability, only referencing in article makes no mention of subject WuhWuzDat 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The following related page has also been listed for deletion:
Spa closures in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. I declined the speedy on this because I felt the claim of a business award might just indicate notability. However the claim is not sourced and I could not myself find any confirmation. This article was originally longer with a lot of questionable material which I removed per WP:BLP and seems to be part of a SPA campaign by its originator. Other editors may feel the claimed award is not sufficient, but unless it can be confirmed the point is moot. Kim Dent-Brown 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Any award for "most promising" is doubtful as the basis of a claim of notability as by definition the person has not "made it" yet. Being a CEO or company founder is equally poor as a rationale for notability. Fæ (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article has been created, deleted, and recreated under other names and then deleted again via CSD. None of the articles have indicated importance or presented notability through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

PROD was contested. Non notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR Nayvik (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor was not banned, just blocked. Though the editor is now evading that block through a wireless connection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I nominated this article for deletion back in December 2005 in the belief that the person was not notable. The person is now deceased. That fact does not itself make a person more or less notable, but it is still my belief that he was not and is not notable, and I think further evidence can be shown in that I find no non-Knowledge (XXG) references to him since from the time briefly after his death (which was, as far as I can see, only covered locally and not nationally). I think it's time to revisit the issue of whether the man actually was notable. My own opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I must admit a lack of general knowledge in the field, but the article as written does not appear to show her as notable. Delete. (But I'd like to hear thoughts from people who actually know the field.) --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that the article meets the general notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Knowledge (XXG) is not a Crystal Ball. His brother plays in the NHL, bur notability is not inherited. Dolovis (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep: Again, I question the following of WP:BEFORE. I remember successfully proding this article in 2008, but since then, I see a number of articles that indicate Toews passes WP:GNG. In a quick 5 minute search of Google, I found , , , , , , , , . These of course go along with the dozens of other articles out there that cover the day to day hockey life of Toews through game recaps. I haven't checked the Canadian Newsstand database at ProQuest, but I'm sure if I do, I will find even more articles that establish his notability. Hopefully these nine will be enough to do that for you. – Nurmsook! 04:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment on the above sources: I did follow WP:BEFORE, and found no significant, independent, reliable sources to support this article (which clearly falls short of WP:NHOCKEY). None of the articles that are listed above are enough to support a WP:GNG argument for this person.
1. The Hot List: a weekly HN roundup of minor league, junior, college and high school players (not significant)
2. Article Toews brothers want to renew rivalry on ice, about his kinship to famous brother
3. Article Islanders prospects Blake Kessel and David Toews look to make own mark, Local sports coverage (not significant coverage)
4. This article is not about David at all, he is just making a prediction for the NHL Playoffs
5. Article, Younger Toews joins Wheaties, short press release announcement (not significant)
6. NHL Insider, Toews, Kessel receiving brotherly support, article about kinship with famous brother by NHL staff writer is not independent
7. Blog report to share short press release announcement (not signifigant)
8. USA Today article, North Dakota hockey getting another Toews, is independent coverage, but it is just a standard sport article to announce that David is joining the the Fighting Sioux. Fine as a reference, but not enough to support notability (routine sport coverage, not significant)
9. ESPN article is about Shattuck-St. Mary's School, and the mention about David is passing and insignificant. I couldn't even find his name in the article without the help of my text search.

Dolovis (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no pleasing you, isn't there? Regardless, the above sources clearly indicate his passing of WP:GNG. I could scrounge up some more, but I'm sure you would find a reason to knock those down as well. I've shown all that is needed. Hopefully the closing admin will see that also. Cheers! – Nurmsook! 06:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sports teams issue press releases for virtually every single player who joins their team, and these are generally published with sports news. The article you are referring to is nothing more than that, with the exception that it identifies that the new player has a famous NHL brother. Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards would be completely meaningless if all that it took to be deemed notable is to have your name mentioned in the sports section USA Today. The article is not significantly about David. It is about his kinship to his famous brother. Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
From what I gather, the QMI Agency, the source of said article, is not a public relations firm. ccwaters (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here the Wheat kings press release from the day before ccwaters (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "joined the team" coverage was considered routine. Additionally, though I can't find a diff right now, I have also read the view that there should be sufficient notable sources that contain enough information to write a decent article about the subject's life. The sources referenced above don't seem to fit the bill. (There may be others, of course, that do.) isaacl (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable college student hilarity. E. Fokker (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry but having all your friends come here and say keep does not make you notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Blatant autobiography. I did not see any links which provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: the links mentioned Copycat name and logo, Copycat = Artist, Vakas Siddiqui. This guy owns Copycat which is mentioned in Copycat's official website. Sohail Adam (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: Though the supplied links indeed make much of the article's content verifiable, they are largely primary sources and therefore do not contribute to demonstrating notability. That would require substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources (newspaper features about the subject, academic books dedicated to him, etc.); searching for these (e.g. in Google News and Google Books) I can find no such coverage. Therefore I don't believe the subject meets the WP:BIO inclusion requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All the links and/or references do contribute to notability specially after the articles has been improved, its clearly mentioned in referred links. 115.186.124.143 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This IP has made no other edits to date. OSborncontributionatoration 01:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The recent edits do improve the article's tone, but I'm afraid they still don't supply evidence of the kind of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources that would be necessary to convince me that the article's subject meets the WP:BIO inclusion requirements. We'd be looking for things like multiple newspaper articles substantially profiling the article's subject, chapters in books devoted to him - this kind of thing. As far as I can see the article's subject doesn't qualify for any special notability guideline that would waive this requirement. I'm therefore still favouring deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Why This article does little more than promote H66666666 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Article in its current form has loads of POV problems and runs a foul of WP:SPAM, but some of the references given do hint at at least borderline notability. 2 says you, says two 15:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Everything in this article is sourced by major news outlets. It is not slanted toward the company in any way and keeps a very neutral point of view. I don't see how this page would be considered any different than that of Woot! Woot or Groupon Groupon, two similar sites to 1SaleADay.com. Please keep in mind the second half of G11: Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Mordechai10 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aside from what has already been written, several other editors have contributed to the article including an edition to the Trademark Dispute section, which is a part of the notability of the article. Mordechai10 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
— Mordechai10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSborncontributionatoration 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment With the marketing section deleted by OSborn, this article is well sourced and has a NPOV. Seems mostly factual. The WIPO trademark dispute section certainly has significant notoriety and independent interest to the legal community - that is why I added to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.151.100 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Speedy contested, blatant advertising, no assertion of notability, ad copy sounds like it's right off the company Web site Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Books gives nothing useful (one item is from a bottom-feeding company that republishes Knowledge (XXG) content). Google Scholar shows nothing much for Neopac and LED. No coverage==no notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:PROF. E.g., no evidence of significant impact on the field or national awards. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep. I have to disagree. This does not fail WP:PROF. As per the Criteria section, "If an academic/professor meets the following condition, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC."
In the latter guideline, it is noted that "A musician may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." It also states that a musician may be notable if he or she "as won or placed in a major music competition."
It is verifiable that Bertman was a director of two independently notable ensembles (The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps as well as the Spirit of Houston). It is also verifiable that while Bertman was with the Cavaliers, they won multiple Drum Corps International World Class Championships. This classifies as a "major music competition".
It should also be noted that Bertman is an author of a series of books by a major publisher, the Hal Leonard Corporation.
It is for all of this, that I cannot advocate the deletion of this article. Brian Reading (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The book series is not mentioned in the article. Also, in The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps, David Bertman is not mentioned at all. Instead it says that Jeff Fiedler retired as director in 2008, after 17 years, and that Adolph DeGrauwe is current director. So it appears that David Bertman was not the director when the major award was won. You'd need a reliable source for that. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment If the book series is not mentioned, then it should be. However, this is not a valid reason for deletion. Bertman was not the main director of the Drum and Bugle Corps, he was the Brass caption head, which is a major direction position. Regardless, the language in the guideline simply states that if the musician was simply a member of the ensembles, this is adequate enough. These are things that can be easily verifiable. I applaud your effort to clean up non-notable subject articles from Knowledge (XXG), but I find it wise to familiarize myself with the subject of an article prior to requesting deletion. Brian Reading (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your reply. I enthusiastically agree with your point about what is wise. If you have some sourced information that would help improve this article, I encourage you to edit the article. That would be a valuable contribution. With that said, I am somewhat doubtful that simply being a member of two marching bands is enough to be notable, even though WP:MUSIC could be read that way. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Nomo's points above are well-taken. I'm quite confident, in particular, that the distinction he draws concerning what constitutes an "ensemble" is spot on. Remember, guidelines like WP:MUSIC essentially attempt to predict notability, and it seems to stretch the boundaries of common sense that all members of a notable marching band -- this is literally thousands of people over the course of a given marching band's history -- are notable for this particular association in the same way that WP:MUSIC effectively "predicts" notability for a member of a rock band or string quartet, which has a much more limited and less given to fluctuation lineup. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I agree with Nomoskedasticity and Ginsengbomb about WP:MUSIC. To me, the only viable way to argue that the article should be saved would be to say that Bertman's books satisfy some criteria in WP:PROF. For example, Criteria 4 could be satisfied if several of Bertman's books "are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." I'm voting for deletion but would reconsider if someone comes up with a viable argument using WP:PROF. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for looking that up. Writing those books is a good accomplishment by Bertman, but I don't think that it qualifies him to have an article in Knowledge (XXG). -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Redirect to Spirit of Houston, where he is already mentioned. An associate professor, a university band director - these do not amount to notability, and little coverage is found at Google News. However I did find this article from the Dallas Morning News, which sounds like it might amount to significant coverage; can anybody read it behind the paywall? --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absolutely no sourcing to imply it passes WP:GNG, and no rebuttal to or allaying of the nominator's argument and issue. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Apparently non-notable fashion trend. Searches returns a few literal results - ie. people using "gothic cowboy" as a nickname &c - but no substantial discussion of "gothic cowboy" as a fashion trend. bobrayner (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I tried that and found no sources which actually discussed the "gothic cowboy" subject in any more depth than just gluing together the words "gothic" and "cowboy" as part of a discussion of related concepts. If you can identify any sources, they would be welcome; but in the meantime The Nephs might not be cited, because it's a wikipedia article and it neither includes nor paraphrases "gothic cowboy". Whether or not it's real is not at stake; notability is the problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete despite Andy Dingley's promise of sources, there are none to be found and I don't see how anyone in their right mind thinks you can use another Knowledge (XXG) article as a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article because I loved the book, but in retrospect, I'm not sure if this particular edition is notable enough for its own article. What say you all? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Let it develop with what? The same friggin' information that's already in the articles in all three books' articles? Don't you think the article is redundant since it just says "this is about the series, which consists of 3 books that already have their own articles" and nothing else? It'd only get more redundant if we parroted info from the existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's worse than that -- she's up to 5 books in the series now. :-) My question is, was the publication of all three books together notable enough for an article, since there was a sizeable gap in time and style between the third and fourth books, or is it just a random omnibus volume that has no independent notability? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh yes the books were extremely popular during its publishing although not quite a worldwide phenomena. The original books were a trilogy the later 2 books are considered 'sequel'. Anyway as User talk:TenPoundHammer said we should not parrot articles. On second view if the article would have had a little more info then we should've allowed it. Ok now I am confused.Vin99 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
29,000 hits for "increasingly+inaccurately+named+trilogy", but that is literally a different story. Also see, "a trilogy in five parts", and "the (series) that gives a whole new meaning to the word 'trilogy'". Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I loved the books myself back in the day, but the issue isn't whether the books merit articles, it's whether they, as a trilogy, comprise a subject that meets the GNG. I don't think that they do. About a zillion authors have taken a swing at the subject matter, and finding sources which discuss this trilogy as a trilogy is a mug's game. Heck, is this title even a commonly accepted one for the series, or does it happen to be the name of a particular publisher's omnibus collection?  Ravenswing  05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As it stands, merge to Mary Stewart#The Merlin Series. Articles covering a series of creative works can be encyclopaedic if there is information that can be written about the series as a whole. (For instance, I'm sure no-one would delete The Chronicles of Narnia.) However, this article says little other which books are in the trilogy and that the three are published in a single volume. That fits better in the article about the writer. Should someone want to write a more detailed article about the series, we can consider splitting this off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the "keep" !voters assert that there are many reliable sources available, they have not actually provided any that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

HAL 9000 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but trivial, unsourced references. Obvious attempt to keep this material off the main Hal 9000 article. I have to wonder how the last version was considered "well referenced" when there wasn't a single reference on it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It seems silly to ask someone who doesn't believe in the page in the first place to go work on it. Even if sources are added, though, it is my opinion that such a list is still primarily original research unless secondary sources actually discussing the topic are found. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep and just source the references, which is trivial , as the primary sources are adequate. The use of a notable character in notable works is, as always, apprpropiate content. It's the real world equivalent of WP:Build the web. As for the actual notability of the influence of HAL on popular culture, there is in fact a reference that should satify even who want the title as stated to be notable : DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is most definitely a wealth of WP:RS secondary sourced information from whence to easily improve the quality of referencing for this page and its subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is original research by synthesis as there are not reliable third-party sources that treat the topic. In my opinion, the article is a list of loosely associated topics at best and primary research at worst. It does not meet the criteria of verifiability because no sources treat the topic "HAL 9000 in popular culture" and instead the article is an unneeded content fork composed exclusively of a big trivia section. Since there are no reliable sources that cover the topic of the article, it does not meet the general notability guideline and, therefore, there is no valid reason to keep this article. Jfgslo (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- I think Jfgslo and Shooterwalker have it right. This article is indeed synthesis because no reliable sources deal with the subject of HAL 9000 in popular culture, and the article is in fact just a big long pointless trivia section. Despite two previous AfDs, in which the community in good faith has allowed efforts to properly source the article, nothing whatsoever has been done. This must now be taken as evidence that the sources just aren't there. Reyk YO! 06:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jfgslo has it exactly right. As does Randall Munroe. Deor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the article may lack sources, I took about 5 minutes to find one from Variety, and sawe a bunch of others. The one i found was an article about how kids movies are loaded with pop culture references for their parents, and it mentions specifically the Hal 9000 reference in the movie Robots. So while the article needs work, it's not without merrit, and sources do exist. They should be added, and the article should not be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The article's topic is not "HAL 9000 in popular culture", it's a trivia-like article about cultural references in movies for kids so it doesn't show notability about the topic. Also, the HAL 9000 reference is merely a trivial mention, which does not show notability per the general notability guideline ("significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".) Jfgslo (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh? Is there a verifiable secondary source on the topic? It seems to me that this article stripped of "original research, synthesis, etc" would be a blank page. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Concepts of Nineteen Eighty-Four (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a duplicate of a lot of pages that already exist with better sourcing and less original research. See Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four. Any useful content y'all happen to notice can be merged, but the article doesn't need to exist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Fails WP:USRD/NT. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

County Road 516 (Brevard County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Fails WP:USRD/NT. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

County Road 511 (Brevard County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. If necessary, the history can always be accessed to smerge any content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep, has value & potential for expansion. FieldMarine (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Value", sans context, is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. The potential to be a good article is not a valid reason for keeping. If this potential indeed exists, then expand the article with this potential so that you can actually back up that assertion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
At least part of the value stems from the people in the local area looking for info on a popular route, as noted in the comment below. Brevard County is a relatively large area, with a higher population then some states in the U.S. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
But wikipedia isn't a street directory. The article as is has the terminii, length, the communities encountered, and mention of a few things by the road (two airfields). The only piece of information that could possibly be lost in that is the two airfields; the rest would be inserted in the table (which should have a column listing the communities). The wayfinding value of this article (practically zero for any road article, thats why we use street maps instead of directional guides today) would not be lost in this transition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Knowledge (XXG) articles on roads would not provide useful navigation information for wayfinding. My point is the article has potential value in providing information on the history of this road & it’s importance or impact to the development of the area, etc . Or perhaps how the road has changed through the years going from a regular road to a county road, which provides useful historical information. Like any stub, it provides a placeholder for this kind of information for future development of the article. No doubt the article needs work, but if it is deleted, the work will stop. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Except, the article itself is not proposed for deletion. It has been proposed for merger/redirection into the list article. As such, should its entry become too lengthy in the list at a future date, it can be split back out. Case in point, List of Michigan County-Designated Highways was formed from the merger of all of the various County-Designated Highway articles. (These are not the same as county roads, which also exist in Michigan.) C-66, F-41, H-58 and H-63 plus "H-16" were all expanded into full articles that demonstrate notability, provide full information on the routing and history and a junction list. Such level of detail would unbalance the list article, so they were all split back out of the list leaving a {{main}} tag and summary behind. In the case here, the article title would be preserved as a redirect, with its full edit history intact. At a later date, should someone wish to expand the article content further, the redirect can be reversed and the article edited. Until that time, there is really no information in the current article that's not in the list. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
History section added. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems like a lot of info to place in a notes section. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the history section is all unsourced and speculative. The fact that it's named for someone could be merged into the notes section, but the rest of the history section really needs sources or it needs to be removed from the current article as WP:OR. As for the "lead" of the article, most of that is superfluous information that can be condensed into a more concise format in the merger Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The destination page has been convered from a pure table into a RCS style list. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, with the addition of the "History section" to this article, which was not present when this discussion started, I request this article be relisted again for the merger discussion. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Dubious notability. Minimal sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - The "Beerware License" is clearly a real thing, see, for example THIS. Whether it's encyclopedia-worthy or not I will leave to others. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's pretty obscure, but it is a perfectly valid license -- RoninBK T C 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Note: This editor also multi-licenses his contributions with the Beerware license, if you're willing to buy me a drink
  • The shed in my back garden is a perfectly valid shed, and, as anyone who has looked at it will attest, clearly a real thing too. But it only becomes Knowledge (XXG) material when the world at large has sat down, documented it, and published the knowledge of it, and that knowledge has been acknowledged and entered into the general corpus of human knowledge. Otherwise it remains a perfectly valid, but generally unknown and undocumented and thus not appropriate for a systematization of existing verifiable knowledge, shed.

    Can we now focus on the quite proper, deletion-policy-compliant, point that the nominator made, that sources already documenting this subject in depth don't exist; rather than on things that are irrelevant to policy, to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, and to an AFD discussion? Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, but consider merge/redirect. Google Books turns up a number of references in reliable sources to the beerware license as a type of quasi-free license. Examples: . Many of these references do little more than define the term. However, a few of these sources do provide some additional content: they identify Poul-Henning Kamp as a notable proponent, and discuss wording, alternatives, and the possible social significance of licenses like this as "social commentary on the length and complexity of the GPL.". (One of these sources points to a now-deleted Knowledge (XXG) page on otherware for further discussion.) So I think "beerware" is a legitimate search term and a keep on that basis. However, a merge/redirect could be considered, maybe to freeware.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Alive (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Notability is not established according to criteria for bands found at WP:BAND and is additionally not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 independence of the DoD source is dubious; there is no other significant coverage by reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable non-profit. Fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call that source "independent of the subject". --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Is there some connection between the DoD, American Forces Press Service and SPM that is not obvious? These appear to be independent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How is a Department of Defence Community Relations Press Release a suitable independent and reliable source for establishing the notability of an organisation who's prime claim to fame is supporting Department of Defence Community Relations? Some would argue the source is nothing other than propaganda. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Fallacy of the excluded middle. SMM does not exist to serve the DoD CR, and the DoD CR does not exist to serve the SMM. Unless I am mistaken, they are independent organizations that just happened to do some work together. Am I mistaken? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
They may not be officially connected as organisations, but I don't regard the source as being sufficiently independent and reliable to establish notability for the reason I have stated. That is my view. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In your first post here you state your opinion that you don't consider them independent. However, you didn't post anything about why you claim that. IDo you believe that this S&S article about Boeing's ABL falls into the same category? If not, why not? I'm not being an ass here, I'm seriously trying to understand why you believe this does not meet the definition of independence. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I did state "why" in my second comment. We are looking to establish notability, not merely verify a fact. You have to ask yourself does the DoD have any interest in promoting the subject? Is there a close connection given that SMM participate in the DOD America Supports You program - is there any COI there? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You've answered a question with another (series of) questions. Apparently nothing to see here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've already answered your original question twice. I'm not going to respond to your unrelated analogy. How about we let other editors make up their minds? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dive Rite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:GNG, it is not necessary that an article contain references to reliable sources; those sources must merely exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Advanced search for: 
"Failure-oblivious computing"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Knowledge (XXG) Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Failure-oblivious computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined WP:PROD. PROD was removed several months ago, yet no attempt was ever made to fix the problems identified. Original PROD reasoning was "No sources or other evidence of notability." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Procedural keep: AfD is not a cleanup tag. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep A Google Books search reveals enough sources to establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. It needs to be noted that the "book" with this title found by a Google Books search is a Knowledge (XXG) mirror. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • So, would that mean we still have no sources? I realize that AFD is not cleanup. This has been an unsourced stub for four and a half years and has no incoming links. I am not proposing that it be cleaned up, I am proposing it be deleted. The dearth of sources and the lack of interest in fixing it would tend to indicate that this is not a notable concept. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary of computing jargon. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, it means that you clearly haven't used Google Books yourself. There are more books that come up in a Google Books search than just "the book with this title". There are, for starters, two sets of conference proceedings (MMM-ACNS 2007 and ICA3PP 2009) with papers that build upon, and themselves cite, Rinard's work on failure-oblivious computing.

        This begs the question "Why?". Why didn't you look at what Google Books brings up? It's not exactly hard to do, and it takes less time than it took to make the edit that I'm replying to here. You'd have seen for yourself that Phil Bridger was talking about one book out of many. Why did you take the zero-effort route? That's not what I'd expect from you.

        The lack of interest in fixing things is endemic, by the way. It's not even confined to computing subjects — where, as noted, our coverage is nowhere near as good as it has traditionally been thought to be by observers. One could posit many reasons for it, but none are relevant to a deletion discussion of this article; nor are they rationales for deletion or evidence of anything except that Knowledge (XXG) writers don't write. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete The notability is not solidified by the sources indicated. --Stormbay (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It was pointed out in October 2010 when this was at Proposed Deletion that the sources supplied are not necessarily the sole sources that exist, and it has already been pointed out again, above, here. Please try to address current arguments, rather than resetting the discussion to zero. This is supposed to be a discussion, and we are expected to read it before joining in. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge into fault tolerance or fault-tolerant system. The concept is notable enough to be mentioned but not notable enough to warrant its own article. It should be described in one of the two articles cited – unfortunately, they are very poor in quality. Nageh (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted above, sources exist (as the people who expended the effort to look for them found) discussing this within the umbrella topic of self-healing software systems or software self-healing. Since we don't have that yet, our coverage of computing subjects being superficial and poor here just as elsewhere, we cannot merge yet. So we keep, since this is valid content under a valid sub-topic title with a useful cited source. There's no sense in throwing this away. It's content that can be built upon. And our coverage of computing certainly needs building. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Numerous sources show it's a notable computing concept. Deleting obscure but encyclopedic stuff is hardly a way to encourage people with special knowledge to edit wikipedia. victor falk 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect example if what is wrong with afd. Some people do a couple of google searches and cnoclude based on that that the topic is notable. Policies are slung around, a mild personal attack is made on the nominator, and the article.... still sucks balls and hasn't been edited a single time in the 16 days since being nominated, and hasn't been edited in any substantive way since the PROD was declined three months ago There actually hasn't been a substantive edit that actually improved this article in any meaningful way since it was created nearly six years ago. Then : Now If it is so obvious to all of you how easy it would be to fix the article how come nobody is willing to do it? If it can be fixed, fix it and I'll happily concede the point. I suppose it's easier to say I'm a lazy ignoramus because I'm not a computer geek. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No-one has said that, of course, and you are making a straw man argument. Now what is lazy, however, is the bad attitude, which I wouldn't have expected to come from you, that it's somehow Somebody Else's Problem to do this fixing that you want done. So an article isn't perfect yet. Perfection ab initio is not required, and writing an encyclopaedia is the work of years and decades, not 16 days, or even three months. If one wants something done, one mustn't do nothing and then whinge about the fact that no-one does anything. That, after all, clearly defines onesself, the whinger, as part of the very problem of people who do nothing. One must, rather, be bold and do it. That's what Knowledge (XXG):Be bold has always been about.

      This isn't what's bad about AFD. This is what's bad about expecting other people to do the writing and abusing AFD as a club, when that doesn't happen to one's satisfaction and volunteer editors don't jump when one shouts "frog!". What you've really exemplified, and quite badly, is what's wrong with some people's approach to a collaborative, long-term, writing project. Demanding that someone else make this better or I, whilst doing nothing myself, will try to tear down what other people have made so far is very wrong, and not only not the way that we intend to write things here, but also not the way that, over the past decade, most of our content has been written in practice. Go and look at the incremental evolution of the banana article over 9 years, from a 1 sentence stub with a single source to what it is now. Go and look at how long it took North Asia, an entire region of the planet, to expand.

      Live with the fact that we're not finished yet, don't abuse deletion nominations as a way to whip writers into writing to your personal timetable, and don't decry a lack of effort whilst being the very no effort problem that you decry. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I know nobody explicitly said I am a lazy ignoramus, but the tone of some of the above comments certainly suggests it. I haven't improved the article myself for two reasons: 1. I know nothing about the subject matter and do not believe I could properly make the improvements. 2. I do not believe this is a particularly notable concept that Knowledge (XXG) needs to cover in it's own article, which is the only reason I have nominated it for deletion. I love seeing crappy articles get improved by collaboration. That has not and by all indications will not happen to this article. Your own argument leans towards not keeping it as a stand alone article, the problem being that there is no umbrella article on the broader subject involved to merge it to. In short I would fix it myself if I thought I could, I'm not afraid to improve articles and have done so hundreds of times. I don't see any hope for this one, and it is tiring in the extreme to repeatedly see the argument that somebody possibly could maybe fix it someday based on nothing but WP:GHITS. I also don't appreciate the suggestion that I have abused the afd process. I am not advocating that the article be cleaned up because I don't think it can be. I am advocating for its deletion, which is exactly what AFD is for. I have to mention as well that "whinger" is not a term I am familiar with but I have a feeling I don't much like being thus identified. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

An unreferenced list of songs. While the songs themselves may be notable the list is not. Guerillero | My Talk 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:OR (by being an example of original synthesis), WP:RS (by relying substantially on blogs and other unreliable sources, though there are a few better sources present) and especially WP:NOTNEWS (by focusing on may passing mentions in news reports on an event that nobody will remember in a year's time. These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article. The existing articles Fish kill and Bird kill are more than enough coverage for Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • delete - seems to be sensationalizing the events, which haven't been shown to be more than on the high side of normal events. the article attempts to string unrelated events into something "bigger" than what it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep References to blogs should be removed to comply with WP:RS, but there do seem to be a more-than-sufficient number of reliable sources that refer to the die-offs as instances of a single, larger event. The separate events have been synthesized in primary sources; I don't think the article violates WP:OR, but even if it does in its current form, it could be rewritten not to. I can see that it might run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, although I do not think most of the sources cited count as "routine news reporting". YardsGreen (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article." This sounds like a good reason to keep the article and improve it. If no one is talking about this in a year, then it can be deleted, but when the WWF Italy president is saying that something like this has never happened before, and the reality is that these deaths are "not exceptional or surprising", it's quite important for someone to lay out the facts. I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not Knowledge (XXG) is capable of producing a good article on a controversial subject like this one (especially one where environmentalists are involved), but for the sake of AfD I think we have to assume it is. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Further research of the topic via the National Wildlife Health Centre website on the article page "Bird Kill" shows that these occurences have been happening for a long time, with many of the cases solved. A more appropiate choice for this article would be to redirect and update appropiately in the "Bird Kill" page. It is curious that this event has occured, but I am inclined to believe this has been caused by a news phenomenon stemmed from the events in Arkansas. Similarly the map link supplied on the article page is misleading. Such maps could be made for any number of odd instances in biodiversity or natural events. Redirect the page to bird kill and update appropiately. So Much For Subtlety (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. These mass deaths are not unexceptional as previously mentioned the event (which research is still ongoing to discover the cause) has by no means been solved at all. Pierricbross (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has cited many reliable sources, and I don't think it is an original research. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the above. A clearly notable series of events, the background of which is expected to be very interesting, if we ever find out why it happens. —Nightstallion 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources seem reliable enough, and the thing has (unfortunately) prospects to grow in scale. - ☣Tourbillon 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep-this is apparently what got the attention and hence continuous coverage from a number of reliable sources. If the coverage wasn't so great, then I'd oppose, but as there are articles nearly everyday on this now...I'd have to say keep.Smallman12q (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played any games in professional football. Andy4226uk (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital Transformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yes we should have an article on the subject, but this is is not now suitable for Knowledge (XXG), but an essay--and, looking at it, it seems to have been copied from another source, though I have not yet found it--quite possibly somewhere on the capigemini site, which sounds more likely than MIT. The question is whether we should rewrite or start over. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • delete. Certainly this is an essay, with sparse refs corroborating particular facts and figures, but no references to the concept itself. As it was noted, the term is indeed in wide circulation, but this article clearly does not fit wikipedia requirements. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Grandiose claims; of course, google does give a bunch of hits since it's an online business... but is this notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. It does seem that they are a big travel agency. That doesn't automatically mean that they are notable, however. There needs to be independent coverage, and I'm afraid your first two references fail this criterion, as they are basically just press releases. There should be something in there that makes note of the impact they have on some aspect of society, not just "We are expanding". See Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies) and particularly the Independence of sources section for guidelines. There seems like there could be something to the third reference, though. Do you have any more details about this "Abacus President’s Award"? From the reference you provided it looks like a very corporate thing. I'd be inclined to accept it as proof of notability if it can show some effect on society, but not if it's just an award for being a profitable company. Maybe there are sources in one of the Indian languages? Remember that sources don't have to be in English -- although I won't be able to check them. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. From third reference it says “We are thrilled to win this prestigious President’s Award from our preferred and largest GDS partner,” said K.V. Abdul Nazar, Chairman and Managing Director of Akbar Travels. So, will a partner awarding oneself be sufficient for WP:N?
Also in same page, Presenting the award, Mr Robert Bailey, President and CEO of Abacus International, said, “... ... Abacus is proud to be the preferred partner for Akbar Travels in its continued growth efforts over the long-term.” Again, it seems to be a pat in the back from a partner. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was also my initial impression. Unless more evidence is forthcoming I suggest that we don't accept this award as proof of notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 11:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing outside of press releases and a few listings in Lonely Planet and a couple of other travel guides that I've been able to find (in addition to one consumer court case listing on Indian Express), doesn't pass GNG/CORP on that basis, especially without any RS support for the claims within the article including that of largest travel agent in India. —SpacemanSpiff 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

non-notability, no references oldmankdude (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

article does not cite any references or sources and does not appear to meet notability guidelines Sjpanther (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete a single TV performance and z-level award ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Should not be deleted. This page should not be deleted, The Detours have had a massive impact on the Scottish music scene and are recognised in the UK music industry as signed professional musicians who are PRS registered and chart eligable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Topic is basically original research and synthesis with no reliable source attesting to this as notable phenomenon that needs to be discussed in a separate article. meco (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - While the term is quite widely used, there is no real clinical definition. Article needs some work, but the concept itself passes GNG and the sniff test... I'm just unclear on how much this can reasonably be improved. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Richard Norton above. The US government considers "club drug" a useful term of categorization and thus establishes notability of the subject in Knowledge (XXG) terms: "Club drugs are being used by young adults at all-night dance parties such as "raves" or "trances," dance clubs, and bars. MDMA (Ecstasy), GHB, Rohypnol, ketamine, methamphetamine, and LSD are some of the club or party drugs...." Carrite (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non notable fictional character. Lacks credible sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recurring character in 2000 AD with 21 appearances, scores of entry data pages on Comic Book Database consisting of individual issues, artists, and series, and five other secondary sources. See the article.
Rewrote and added sources. Anarchangel (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, though the sources could use some work. In the event that the article is not kept it should be Merged to Rogue Trooper. Artw (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have reformatted the article from an article about the character into an article about the eponymous series. I presume the notability of the series to be higher than that of the character, but I won't comment on if that's sufficient. – sgeureka 08:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Different comic book series are named for the guy. The second reference linked "Tor Cyan: Blue Murder (Pt 1)". If they are publishing that many titles with the character, and he gets popular enough to have his own series published for him, from a notable comic book line, he must be notable. Dream Focus 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think that this article should have been nominated for deletion.  Also, Tor Cyan is not a book, so WP:NBOOK applies only marginally.  In addition to many web-site hits, I see several web pages dedicated to Tor Cyan.  Each such independent site is a reliable source for the narrow purpose of establishing notability of Tor Cyan.  This is not surprising for a character and series associated with a mass-produced comic book.  Based on personal experience, six issues of a comic book dedicated to one character is sufficient for people to talk about that character for decades.
For future reference, please note that the norms and practices of Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion were not followed prior to this discussion.  From Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion,
  • first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.RB  66.217.117.201 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced BLP which doesn't appear to be verifiable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The previous afd closed with speculation that sources exist but none were forth coming. This was a little webcast that was done with the early Slashdot folk and does not meet WP:N or WP:V. meshach (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources found, and proof that absolutely no one should say "keep but source it better" unless they prove that sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No one said that in this afd. Let's try to assume that others want to help and let others contribute uninhibited. meshach (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable songwriter. 139 Bing/Yahoo hits, neither of which are very good. The one hit that had even the potential to save this article comes from a blog that admits its accuracy can't be vouched for--not nearly enough to be used as a source in a BLP. Blueboy96 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, basically. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Google search of two article fragment reveals real name of subject is possibly "Marcella Zalianty," who is the subject of an article on some Indonesian edition of WP (I don't recognize the language, sorry). LINK based on THIS GOOGLE SEARCH. I have no idea why these two names are cross-pollenating, since one is Indonesian and the other is African-American. I have no opinion as to whether the article subject is notable in WP terms. Carrite (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Upon further reflection, I really don't like the way that these "African-American" and "Indonesian" artist articles are crossing over verbatim. Delete as non-notable with some significant chance of copyvio.Carrite (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Content can be merged from the history as an editorial action.  Sandstein  07:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Like many of the pages for the Fighting Fantasy titles, this is simply unnecessary. All it does is recap the general information found on the backcover and in any good review. With the exception of a few core titles - such as Warlock of Firetop Mountain (the very first title) and House of Hell (soon to be a film), the remainder fail the notability test. There simply isn't anything else that can be added. Some fans have made attempts by adding trivia and even a map solution, but this is all very in-universe and not encyclopedic. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Not quite sure what you are saying, but thanks for the input. The articles in themselves are little more than trivia and POV. That's a fact. That said, I can glean what few gems are truly useful for another page and redirect rather than delete. Thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. no. 66, in The 101 most influential people who never lived : how characters of fiction, myth, legends, television, and movies have shaped our society, changed our behavior, and set the course of history

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

↑