From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 November 4 November >
Guide to deletion

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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Paul Corbet-Singleton

Paul Corbet-Singleton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Face (Corbet-Singleton) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Throwaway (Corbet-Singleton) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. I'm proposing the deletion of articles about an Australian author and his novels because there is no evidence that he is notable enough to have his own encyclopaedia article (no prizes, no significant critical attention, etc). He fails WP:AUTHOR and his books fail WP:NBOOK (no awards, no significant critical attention etc). andy ( talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Fair enough, but the author objects to downgrading the articles saying things like "Why does Emily Bronte, who wrote a grand total of ONE novel, deserve a page on here more than this author?" and "This is a full-length, legitimate, published novel. It deserves a page in an encyclopedia just as much as any other novel, regardless of its level of publicity". andy ( talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We can prove he's an Australian novelist by reference to the National Library of Australia ( here). (Okay, at a hair-splitting level, it technically shows that he's a novelist published in Australia.)— S Marshall T/ C 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Nobody has denied that he's an Australian novelist. It would indeed be a strange thing to lie about. What's denied is that he's a notable novelist (Australian or otherwise). andy ( talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
... which is exactly what I said right at the start of this debate.  :)— S Marshall T/ C 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Francoise Cherry-Cohen

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

Contested PROD. My reasoning at PROD still applies: 'Just having a job in the television industry isn't enough - what has she actually done that is notable? I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources.' The-Pope ( talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG. What's next, an article about the janitor? Qworty ( talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: It's bothersome enough that the PROD was removed with but the cryptic "rm PROD after restoration" for explanation, but quite disturbing that an admin did that. In the meantime, the top end G-hits for her is this article, her IMDB article, her Linkedin article, her Facebook articles ... There are zero G-news hits for her, and zero evidence of passing the GNG or any other notability criteria. My bafflement as to the grounds for contesting the prod is total.  Ravenswing  15:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Check the logs and read WP:PROD. It was PRODded, deleted (by myself) after 7 days, then contested at WP:REFUND and thus restored (as it happens, again by myself) in accordance with the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I've had occasion to read it over the years, thanks. That being said, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning. Hanging the term "procedural" off of your edit summary just might have been a tipoff that removing a prod tag from the restored article was, in fact, procedural, and provoked fewer questions.  Ravenswing  19:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Peter Roycroft

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

Contested Prod. Doesn't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. E. Fokker ( talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Bubba's College and Grill

Bubba's College and Grill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This computer bulletin board system is said to have operated for four years in the 1980's, serving up to 600 users. I could find nothing at Google News archive, Google Books (other than one entry derived from this article) or Google Scholar to support notability. It reads like a personal reminiscence. Edison ( talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Freelancin' Roundtable

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

This phone modem based bulletin board system operated in Texas for 3 years in the 1980's. The article is interesting, but the subject does not appear to satisfy notability. I could find one author who mentioned it at Google Scholar, nothing at Google News archive or Google Books other than mentions apparently derived from the Wikipedia article. Maybe someone can find reliable sources other than under the article title such as [1]. It reads like a personal reminiscence. Edison ( talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If this page does not meet the requirements for existing here, so be it. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken444444 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was The result was withdrawn by nominator and rename to Gambling in Maryland. As suggested, an article with that title is more appropriate. Sebwite ( talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

List of casinos in Maryland

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Presently, there is only one casino in Maryland. The other ones are yet to have opened. At most, there are only two more that will likely open any time soon. Articles on those two would be appropriate at this point, since they have received a huge amount of media coverage, and one was just approved via a voter referendum. But this is insufficient for a list. Sebwite ( talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment From its racetracks to its lottery to its casinos, there's room for someone to write an encyclopedic article about gambling in Maryland, of which this would be a part. I think the nominator is correct, though, that this is no more than a directory (to Perryville, Maryland), so it would seem. Mandsford 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I do believe there are grounds for there to be multiple articles on gambling in Maryland at this point, just not a limited list like this. There are two more casinos slated to open in the future, and there is enough definitive information about them out there that they would pass the crystal ball criteria. There was recently a referendum called "Question A" in Anne Arundel County that was followed by media around the whole country on whether or not to build a casino at Arundel Mills. Two years ago, the statewide referendum was passed, allowing up to five casinos to be constructed in the state (Yes five is the maximum; according to the state consitution now there cannot be any more without a referendum). It may be possible to write an article about this. The issue of slots in Maryland has been a hot political topic in recent years, so there is probably more beyond that. Sebwite ( talk) 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sean Berdy

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

Child actor whose only notable role was in a direct-to-video film, The Sandlot 2. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete... but no... not quite speedy-able, as article is sourcable and makes no outrageous or libelous claims. And yes, while article about Sean Berdy was written by editor User:Seanberdy, [3] and even if the new editor might not have been aware of Wikipedia's concerns toward COI, the article now belongs to Wikipedia's, and tone "might" have been corrected through regular editing... so let's show a little politeness to a newcomer. Sheesh. The basic problem, simply put, is that this individual's very short career fails WP:ENT. And while yes, the individual does have coverage for his role in Sandlot 2 while also being hearing impaired, [4] this makes this almost a WP:BLP1E. So until he receives coverage for other things and/or his film career grows, this one is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Andrea Baptiste

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

This is an unsuccessful candidate for a statewide office that lost by a fairly large margin. Completely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Last AfD closed as no consensus; there is no non-local coverage and no reason for keeping this as a public service. Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Hentai companies. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Pink Pineapple

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

Non-notable company. One relevant ghit on each of Books and Scholar. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There are a rather large number of blue links. Surely that is enough for its own list article. Dream Focus 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There is also a bunch of those blue links tagged with notability issues, just because something is notable does not mean the studio is, things stand out in their own way. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Almost every single anime and manga article Wikipedia has left is tagged with notability issues. This article is nothing more than a list anyway, so just rename it, and thus problem solved. Dream Focus 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't. Some of the things this company produces are notable, therefore a list article showing all of them is perfectly valid. Wikipedia:LIST Dream Focus 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Marko Sjoblom

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero mention of any career with the Finnish EFAF team, possible WP:HOAX, article has already been speedied three times for notability. Top Jim ( talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep{{Hangon}} this is not a stub. {{notability}} exists just new to writing articles in here. Pittosporum ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment everyone be nice to the newbie. Welcome to Wikipedia and be sure to ask questions! If you think you need more than a few hours, may I suggest we move the page to your workspace where you can edit it to your heart's content and won't have to mess with this "deletion stuff" until you think the article is ready?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It hasn't been speedied three times, only twice (both under A7). The first deletion was a prod. You can see a copy of the most developed deleted version here.

    There is a source here (in German), which quotes Marko Sjoblom quite extensively, but it's a press release and so is not independent. If you search, you'll find various other sources, none of which are enough to suggest this BLP meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

    We can't have an article, but deletion is the most stupid way to handle repeatedly-re-created material. It justs leave another redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write an article, and we'd be back at AfD in another year. Salting is an option but there's an alternative to deletion, which the guidelines say we should consider first: Redirect to TxtLoan. Consider protecting the redirect.— S Marshall T/ C 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Sorry I am somewhat lost but thanks for being understanding, whatever the outcome. Not sure how much you care but this bio profile is quite widely searched on the internet, in particular the UK and elsewhere in Europe and my intention was for wiki to be the first one to acknowledge that. The deleted article from 2008 was reviewed and this one is good. Also, isn't European Champion and MVP high enough achievement for wiki article or is it lack of evidence to support this that drives the AfD, please advice? Finally, here is recent The Guardian article re: TxtLoan: [1] Pittosporum ( talk) 09:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the GNG. Sorry, Pittosporum, those achievements aren't good enough to meet the criteria given in WP:ATHLETE. Specifically, the criterion for an American football player is: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." This isn't the case here. Secondly, articles which are about TxtLoan don't serve to support Sjoblom's own notability; notability is not inherited. Finally, what's the basis for your contention that this bio profile is widely searched on the Internet?  Ravenswing  16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed there isn't, but that's irrelevant. What I was commenting on was Pittosporum's implication that an article about TxtLoan bolsters Sjoblom's notability, for which the precept that notability is not inherited is quite relevant. Since I am neither advocating a redirect nor addressing your advocacy for redirects, the notability threshold or lack thereof for the same wasn't at issue.  Ravenswing  19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: You may have mistaken my intent. Those tidbits may well be pertinent to the subject's own biography, despite that they do not establish notability as per WP:BIO. In or out, the subject still isn't notable.  Ravenswing  13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Chi-Ming Chow

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Oddly he is lacking Google News hits, yet he is consistently quoted in articles in all major Canadian television/news papers.
CBC News - Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study
CBC News - Heart risks vary by ethnicity: Ont. study
CBC News - Artery hardening worse among immigrants: study
Toronto Star - Young musician battles bad genetics
Globe & Mail - Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems
I would add that when clicking the "Scholar" Google link you posted above, he is found as top author or contributing author on hundreds of papers. Ebrawer ( talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm with Ebrawer. I do not even remotely understand the purported grounds for deletion and I can't seem to make any sense at all out of what Ttonyb's saying. Those sources are impeccable. The article's subject is a medical doctor and an assistant professor on cardiology and he's being quoted in very reputable, national news outlets as an authority on heart attacks. Is the objection that the national news outlets haven't interviewed Chow about him personally? I don't accept that Chow has to do a chat show style interview in order to be entitled to a Wikipedia article. Surely his professional and academic standing should suffice.— S Marshall T/ C 12:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Very simply put, there is no secondary support for the article. If the article was about "Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study" or "Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems", the references could be used to support the article, but the article is about an individual. Granted, the references quote the individual, but that is the extent of the support. If one reads WP:RS, one will see it states, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." All the references do is support that the individual has been quoted in regards to the subject matter in the articles. I'll ask the question, how does being quoted in a few articles support notability? As far as I can tell, it does not.
If one looks at the criteria, it requires one of two items to be satisfied. 1)The receipt of a well-known and significant award or honor, or 2) That the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 1)None of the awards are particularly well-known or significant awards or honors. 2) It does not appear that he has accomplished something considered to be a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - an iPhone app is not significant.
If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well. BTW - being interviewed on a chat show only amounts to a primary, not secondary reference source. ttonyb ( talk) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Well, based on your reason for deletion "Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance." I take from this that that was the criteria you had in mind to determine his notability. The lack of GNEWS hits is apparently due to Google having poorly indexed various Canadian news sites. Saying he is not notable for not being in the news and then saying that him being in the news is not notable is a contradiction. Furthermore, the (Find sources: "Chi-Ming Chow" – news · books · scholar · free images) bar includes a Google Scholar link which clearly does give significant hits.

    We are discussing a Canadian cardiologist, and his awards and recognition are significant in that field. Yet, what do you mean by him lacking significant honours? Well, if one verifies the rather lacking "Canadian Cardiologists" category, it contains 4 or 5 dead Canadian cardiologists, all with the... Order of Canada. This is hardly a standard by which to judge the significance of awards in the context of cardiology. I suppose they were added in an effort to write biographies on recipients of the Order of Canada. Practically speaking, it is not surprising that you do not consider prominent Canadian cardiology awards well-known. A cardiologist would not recognize most neurology awards either, let alone a lay-person. He is recognized around the world in great part due to the software he has written, and has received medical education innovation awards for it. His tools are used around the world. Again, I can understand this not being significant to you, but it is within his field.

    As for the matter of secondary sources, we are attempting to establish notability. His being sought-out by the various national media as an authority on cardiology related matters is a source of verification of the claim that he is notable. These articles can serve both the purpose of establishing the individual's notability in the field of cardiology or as sources on the article's primary subject matter. You brought up lack of GNEWS hits an important factor in failing the notability requirement. This was your logic. What kind of news article would meet your standards? "Dr. Chi-Ming Chow is awarded Order of Canada by Her Majesty the Queen"? Ebrawer ( talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Your comment, "we are attempting to establish notability" is the most telling and is the basis for deletion. If the individual is not notable as defined by Wikipedia in WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC using secondary sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion.
There is no contradiction in my comments about news coverage. The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him, not coverage not about him that quotes him. Quotes from him do not cover him (nor is it secondary coverage about him), they cover an topic he is knowledgeable about.
You have made comments about his being recognized for his vast software contribution, but I see no evidence the support that statement. ttonyb ( talk) 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – You challenged the article on the basis of notability. Given they I believe him to be notable, and that he meet the requirements, I do not see how my attempting to point out why he is notable to you, which is what I mean by "establish his notability", is somehow "telling". Telling of what, that he is not notable? By this circular logic, once you have stated that he is not notable, any attempt to prove that he is constitutes... an admission of non-notability?

    Anyways, let's just stick to the requirements. WP:BIO: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars [...] are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

    So as an academic, he doesn't need a news story to be about him. Therefore you are plainly wrong to say the following: "The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him". That said, let's move on to WP:ACADEMIC.

    7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Let's see if he meets the test.

    Under "notes and examples": Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

    I believe he passes this test - see MelanieN 's comment. The referenced news sources verify this claim. If you believe he fails, please explain why. Simply saying "Appears to fail WP:BIO." or "If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well." does not constitute a proof in itself, it is merely tautology.
    Ebrawer ( talk) 06:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment– It is true that some Academics "...are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." However, this assistant professor is not one that falls into this category. There is no evidence he has been, "influential in the world of ideas" or proof he is an "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor". As far your assertion that he meets WP:ACADEMIC because he is a, "person [that] is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply. ttonyb ( talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please note that academics and scholars are not held to the requirements of WP:BIO because it is so rare for academics to be written ABOUT; instead they are judged by the impact they have had on their field as per WP:ACADEMIC. I believe Dr. Chow meets those requirements. He has many articles at Google Scholar and they are cited a lot; he is also frequently cited as an expert in the lay press. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Neither is this "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor", nor is there evidence his articles are "highly cited" as required by WP:ACADEMIC. Since this is the case, specifically which criteria in WP:ACADEMIC does this article meet?
  • Keep. He meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7, example 14. ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.") PK T(alk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Tony, I admire the tenacity with which you defend your nomination. But this time you are really stretching. Ebrawer and PKT have quoted chapter and verse showing that the subject clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria as notable, and in response you try to invent a difference between "expert" and "cardiologist". He is being quoted as an expert cardiologist, there is no difference. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – First of all, thanks; however, let's be clear. There is a difference between "academic expert" and "cardiologist". One specifically relates to the academic environment the other specifically to the medical world. You seem to have forgotten to include the word academic in referencing my comments. In addition, the quote is from the definition of WP:ACADEMIC, so I can only assume it relates to defining academic notability and the quote specifically says, "academic expert". Once more, he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply. ttonyb ( talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment OK, you are sticking to your guns, and that is fine. However, decisions here are made by consensus, and I think it's clear what the consensus is at this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
"Silly puffery"? The article seemed fairly factual to me, but I deleted the repetitiousness (education, awards, etc. were all listed twice). -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Hentai companies. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Green Bunny

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

Non-notable company. No relevant ghits on Books, Scholar Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep. Not sure that a Porn animation studio is likely to get hits on Google Scholar, no matter how notable it is. That said, they seem to have a relatively substantial collection of notable films. A quick search revealed La Blue Girl. Arisa, A Kite. I think notability would be possible to establish if I spoke Japanese, and knew what reliable sources wrote stories about Anime Porn. Which I don't, so that's why I'm going weak here. - Addionne ( talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Is there a reference for that? "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This isn't just one product a company made, but a company with a list of notable products. Dream Focus 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The principle is the same. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A Doemain of Our Own

AfDs for this article:
A Doemain of Our Own (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted, all sources are primary or unreliable. Won a single award whose article was deleted for lack of its own notability — with no other valid assertation besides the non-notable award, I see nothing that meets WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Newshounds

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

Every single source is primary. The only award won was Ursa Major, which was deleted via AFD twice as a non-notable award. The fact that it's on keenspot doesn't transfer to notability, neither does the synthesis-laden Controversy section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Nick Popaditch

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

Failed congressional candidate who lost in a 60-40 landslide. Has never held political office. Fails every criterion under WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty ( talk) 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. Not sure I'd call 60-40 a landslide victory.  :)
Comment. 60% is a landslide per the WP article on landslide victory: [6]. Qworty ( talk) 02:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Theres no election article from this district just to say. Spongie555 ( talk) 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, there's United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 51. Obviously you're not the only one unaware of it, because I just added a link to it from the Nick Popaditch article. That section certainly could be expanded (see any other state election article), but it does exist. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. With the photo, book and failed candidacy, I think there is just enough to squeak by WP:GNG. Location ( talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The "Cigar Marine" is significant as the subject of an iconic military-related photo, such as the sailor kissing the nurse in the famous V-J day photo in Times Square ( V–J_day_in_Times_Square). His recommended-reading memoir, Silver Star, and political candidacy add substantial interest. It should not be merged into the election article, as that is only one of four major concepts of interest. JD Lambert( T| C) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Quite a few reasons to keep, none perhaps sufficient on its own, but it's clearly not the case that "zero plus zero plus zero = zero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.140 ( talk) 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-- Clearly an entire article has been created around Nick, this includes alot of notable information, as a former member of the service, I think the page is appropriate and I see no reason to remove it. Nick is not just an individual, but also a former member of the armed services, I see no reason why this should be deleted. So in shot, Keep Jab843 ( talk) 03:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-- While he certainly no longer fits WP:POLITICIAN I do think he gets by on WP:GNG with a published book as well as the news coverage of the Cigar Marine picture. He also had a significant military service with his Silver Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvPok ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Adam Gubman

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

This article fails to assert notability. His body of work is impressive - and Somatone itself is notable, IMO, however this employee of the company does not quite cut it. I found no sources that provide significant coverage of Gubman himself, nor does he seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:COMPOSER - as none of his specific compositions have received coverage, awards, etc. Addionne ( talk) 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Overloved

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

Wikipedia:NSONGS This article is not likely to grow beyond a stub. The only reason it was created because some fans thought Raven Symone should have released this as a second single. The fact that another "notable" artist covered it does not elevate it to beyond stub status. Fixer23 ( talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 17:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I probably placed too much of an emphasis on the fact that it was a stub, but in any case the article fails WP:NSONGS anyway. Fixer23 ( talk) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A Writer Under The Influence

A Writer Under The Influence ([[Special:EditPage/A Writer Under The Influence

|edit]] | [[Talk:A Writer Under The Influence |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/A Writer Under The Influence |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/A Writer Under The Influence |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/A Writer Under The Influence |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable book, self-published by the author, posted here by the author (who also posted a page about himself: Jeff Campagna which is the only page that links to this one. User:Mrs smartygirl ( talk) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sean Bielat

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

Delete as non-notable individual. Would only be notable in this case had he won the election. [email protected] ( talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. There were about 200 Republicans who lost their races for the House and Senate yesterday. We have a lot of deleting to do. Qworty ( talk) 02:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Too bad that there can't be a mass nomination of all the self-serving campaign advertisements, but I'm sure many of them will get through by proving that they were state legislators. We had some guy argue in another AfD that a seat on a county board counted as being part of a "provincial legislature". As a Democrat, I'm intrigued by the idea of deleting the the articles of the losing Republican candidates. Mandsford 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
As a Democrat, since we're baring our souls, I can say I would not have been too sorry to see Barney Frank lose, although I also would have liked almost all the other Dems to have won. The election is over, so enough trash talking. [email protected] ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
As a voter from Massachusetts, I'm perfectly happy for us to tend to the selection of our own representatives and let those from other areas tend to theirs. As an editor peering over this article, like others, I don't see how this particular subject passes WP:POLITICIAN, nor how it had in the first place. Make mine Delete.  Ravenswing  18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Recommend closing out now under WP:SNOWBALL (too many pages already on my watchlist). Thanks. [email protected] ( talk) 03:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. The above editors are misquoting the guideline; the guideline explicitly enjoins us to redirect and not to delete. This is so that, if the subject should attain notability later, we don't have to go fishing for an admin to undelete the article history and sourcing. At least, that figured prominently on my mind when I helped write that portion of the guideline. Ray Talk 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, redirect this article to where? Bielat is not particularly notable in any area or field. [email protected] ( talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The obvious place is United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2010#District 4. Ray Talk 13:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

History of Pernambuco

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

Article that largely either duplicates or replace the content at Pernambuco#History. A merge would be in order if any of the information at this page were sourced, but it isn't. Attempts to contact the page's creator to provide sources have proven fruitless. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment The topic is worthy, to be sure. But there is already a detailed history section at Pernambuco#History, which cites a least some sources. This new article cites no sources, and differs in key details from the older text. If the article is to be kept, then it should probably merge the content from the Pernambuco page, along with that pages references. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I took your suggestion and began trying to merge the old article into this one. They're both very detailed; the difficult part is to integrate the two when they're referring to the same thing. Anyone else out there who wants to give it a shot, it's interesting work, though not recommended in large doses. Mandsford 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 version under discussion was the work of a single author who has requested deletion. There was another version in history, but it was subject to deletion as a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

P4A

P4A (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance, no third-party sources, was modified from blatant advertising to what it is now: a way to gain attention by saying, "hey look, it's on Wikipedia!" Only link is to the official website. Also, obvious WP:COI as the article says it was created by "Fabrizio Balliano" and the article's author is none other than User:Balliano. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually I did not create the page (created by a user), I just modified it cause it was a copy&paste of our wiki and wikipedia said it was not valid... the project is 7 years old, we do not need pubblicity, I added this info just because p4a was added to the framework lists (not by me again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#PHP) but it did not have its own page. If I used my own name because I don't need to hide... anyway there are no links to commercial website and we're not selling anythis... Balliano · talk 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • If an article exists (or appears to exist) merely to state that some product/service/whatever exists, it is often listed under advertising. If you cannot provide third-party sources that explain the importance or significance of the topic, it is likely that an article exists only to gain attention for the product/service/whatever; that's advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 19:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. Self-promotion is the only reason for the article's existence. Qworty ( talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I've added 10 references, anyway I don't care about pubblicity so delete that page and keep all the other commercial frameworks that are actual pubblicity, if that's the way you handle things. Balliano ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
  • Comment If you would like to nominate any of the publicity articles you have in mind for deletion, then that would be very helpful in reducing the backlog. In the meanwhile you may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as the references are concerned, they include a blog post, Sourceforge (a download site which provides the software), several pages which just give a brief acknowledgement that P4A was used in some programming task, and a few appearances on the sort of site that provides brief reviews of almost any kind of freeware or open source software. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Also the Zend Framework page (which is not pubblicity, it's a great product and totally deserves to be on wikipedia) has references pointing to blog posts (2 from the same author) and many subsites of the project itself (forums, contributor guide, press releases from the ZF team itself) and this is the biggest project of all that kind of projects... I don't want to say "hey this page is spam, not mine" because I don't want to accuse anyone while I'm involved in this thread, anyway I want to say that php framework are small projects only for developers so none has a lot of references, maybe none should stay on wikipedia? About sourceforge, it's an independent vendor, and the team has no way to fake the stats so it is a reference, and also it's a reference for the community award (involved more than 100,000 projects) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.224.63 ( talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone tried to edit this to get rid of obvious advertising, it's either been put back in, or never really removed:
a web application framework and RAD for producing event-driven stateful web applications....
(Stateful???)
easy to install, portable and modern...
And it attempts to claim minimal significance are lacking: one of the most voted PHP Frameworks in PHPMagazine's PHP Frameworks Trends.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • all the motivation given are completely wrong, anyway this is a waste of time, deleted that page, wikipedia has beed highly criticized for its structure and this is another proof of blindness, continue this way, you're doing a great job and PS: check all other pages cause wikipedia it's full of spam and you keep yelling at a floss project which is NOT spamming anything. farewell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry I can't blank the page... the system keeps restoring it, delete is ASAP so we're all free to waste time on something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Conor Williams

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

Was voted "next great pundit". Okay, well that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Seems to fall under NOTYET, and probably WP:BLP1E. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.76.93 ( talk) — 156.33.76.93 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • By winning the competition, he became a pundit already . . . he's writing a bunch of articles for the Post. Seems like people who read him there will want to know who he is. Not really a one-off like most competition winners.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Chito Cleofas

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

As the person proposing deletion said, "No evidence of notability. The only reference is to a promotional page." The prod was challenged by an IP that did not add any additional sources. The sourcing is still very weak, and the claim to notability is neither strong nor well-supported. Accordingly, the article should be deleted. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See also, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts#Summarization of comments without nonsense
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Jan Goossenaerts

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

He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country. Fails WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

There were articles about him before he became a supercentenarian, so don't talk about one event hes had coverage for his birthdays way before 110, and the other event is becoming the oldest man in the continent. Longevitydude ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
How is Being the oldest any less notable then being the tallest, shortest, or heaviest? their all in guinness world records Longevitydude ( talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Guinness is a reliable source. But it is not a guarantor of notability. Guinness has its standards for notability. We have ours. They are not coterminous. The tallest, shortest or heaviest person ever might be notable for our purposes. The current tallest, shortest or heaviest person in Europe? Not so much. David in DC ( talk) 20:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
If notability is lost when people die, then Michael Jackson isn't notable either. Ryoung122 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I believe there's no policy or guideline that decrees that being the oldest man in (or perhaps on) a continent is, per se, notable. I've occasionally believed six impossible things before breakfast, so I could be wrong. If I am, please show me where to look. (Interesting, but probably not dispositive, is the fact that one of the "impossible things" in the White Queen's oration to

Alice is a claim to be a centenarian.)

We edit articles one at a time hereabouts, so I'm not sure that "...if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country" is particularly relevant. One need not delete speedily if an article about a living person doesn't include unsourced derogatory information, and I don't think anyone's contending that a longevity claim is derogatory, so we've got an eternity to deal with these other pages.
I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. David in DC ( talk) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. I think this article and any others like it, including the links provided from other AfDs above, should be deleted without a redirect, and the name of the person (and any one- or two-sentence blurb about them) should be on the list page. I think we need a policy for this type of person, who is clearly not otherwise notable. Let the person be searched for in some results, but no reason to keep a redirect to the page. — Timneu22 · talk 11:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The nom's very much in error. The text of the GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Supercentenarians provoke a LOT of articles and news stories about them. Want to bet I can't find at least several articles in reliable sources about him? He's only the fifth living male supercentenarian in the world. Heck, he only has to make it a few more months to crack the top 100 of the oldest verified men in recorded history. That's not notable?  Ravenswing  18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Ravenswing has a good point about WP:GNG, in his second sentence above. However, I think it's answered in the last bullet of that policy: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. David in DC ( talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The problem is YOU. You have been campaigning against articles on supercentenarians, using smear tactics (you say I don't understand statistics, but you are the one that believes in 950-year-olds), recruiting Grismaldo and Itsmejudith time and again.
How about some FACTS:
1. The WOP does NOT give out titles such as "oldest in Europe." However, that can be referenced to NEWS sources (whether true or not...Wikipedia standards are verifiability, not truth).
2. Notability isn't established by your opinion, it's established by outside sources.
3. "Longevity cruft" is a POV-pejorative. Scientists study longevity, including supercentenarians, and the media covers them.
4. I actually agreed with five of the seven articles you listed for deletion. The List of Oldest Living Men should have been kept (4-3 in favor of keep), as well as "Oldest veterans." That you are pushing to delete generalized lists shows your problems with this run deeper than just whether this man is individually notable or not. Ryoung122 00:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

(JJB continues comments hidden by Ryoung122's WP:TALK violation:) While this is not the typical situation of WP:SPAs voting, WP:WOP has been documented as suffering from views contrary to WP basics in very similar (but much more entrenched) ways. Longevitydude and SiameseTurtle are WP:WOP members and Brendanology and Petervermaelen meet the basic criteria of WOP SPAs. I will now notify the two FTN editors and the WP:WOP talk page. JJB 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Siamese Turtle is a lot brilliant than you, JJ. It is actually YOUR views, not our views, that are contrary to science. Since you have ZERO chance of succeeding with your religious arguments in the scientific field, you have chosen to bully teens (like LongevityDude, Brendanology, and Nick Ornstein) and push your POV bias on Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit"...including complete idiots. Ryoung122 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

(JJB picks up again:) My additional factors: "Oldest verified" excludes a large number of unverified European supercentenarian longevity claims as if GWR verification is the only POV necessary, when in fact many parts of the world simply do not have a way of documenting most of their people to GWR standards. Similarly, the solicitation that we join Yahoo WOP in order to verify hidden webcruft is plainly anti-WP; WP:V requires that any citations to Yahoo WOP can be tagged to "request quotation", and there are a junkyardful of such citations in the topic articles. Further, one reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure. David's later comments about WP:WOP are right on target, and then Longevitydude admits the conflatability WP:WOP and GRG, and the accessibility of WP to GRG, by saying "you dont see the GRG making afds". Thus not only are the arguments a failure, they are carried out by multiple COI edits. The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK". JJB 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

More false charges and attempted intimidation. Jan Goosenaerts's articles are NOT sourced from the GRG or from the WOP. They come from Belgium.
But more than that, you should stick to your own arguments. Saying that the other people's arguments are a "failure" is POV bias at least.
But more than that, this statement crosses the line of acceptability:
The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK".
Excuse you, please get off your high horse. You are not "God". Now you are attempting to intimidate the closer's decision about this debate. That's unconscionable.
Do you consider the effect of your actions on others? You are pushing non-scientific POV's on a general encyclopedia that lots of kids read. Wikipedia is NOT a political campaign. Go back to AlterNetDaily. Speaking of "fringe," it's called "alter" net because it supports fringe views, like yours. Ryoung122 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Being the oldest person in a country does not guarantee notability. This is one of many trivial entries here that relate to human longevity that ought to get the axe. It is pure trivia and the obsession of a group of hobbyists, but there is nothing encyclopedic about it. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Since it seems like common outcomes of these types of articles is to delete, as indicated by the Oldest People talk page, why would this one be different? I'm not talking about WP:OTHERSTUFF here, I'm talking about common outcomes. We really need a policy for this type of article. — Timneu22 · talk 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment While I fully agree, that's a discussion for another, as yet created, page. Here, we're just called upon to decide if Jan Goossenaerts is notable. Once we're done (or contemporaneously if someone is so moved,) someone can propose an addition to WP:OUTCOMES. This page is about one tree. The forest can and should be considered by a larger part of the community, in a more visible way than a single AfD about the oldest man on (or perhaps in) Europe. David in DC ( talk) 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Possessing a superlative trait (eg oldest man, tallest human, etc.) is not a concept of notability of itself because that is just a happenstance for that person at the time and place of interest and who else living or dead has been there. This is not to say that this trait cannot lead to other notable facets, which Walter Breuning (mostly) demostrates - his age led him to become notable, but that was, in part, due to living in America as opposed to other areas of the world where media coverage is zero to nil (eg the middle of rural China) but also from having done some somewhat notable aspects during his life. Jan G. here doesn't seem to have any of that reported in secondary sources, so this is just a happenstance. -- MASEM ( t) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Simply being very old does not make one notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E both certainly apply here. Reso lute 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He's old. We got it. We also dont give a fuck. Not notable per everyone. Carolyn Baker III ( talk) 04:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because he has significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meets the WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because there is no "event". Thparkth ( talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thparkth. First off, awesome user name dude. I didn't figure it out unti I tried to type it out. Then all wath revealed. On to business, please review JJB's earlier explanation of why four of the 5 sources are all mirrirs of one another. In pertinent part, he says: "[O]ne reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure." David in DC ( talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • In my opinion, the key point is that four different reliable sources have taken the editorial decision to run this story - and that creates a presumption of notability for me. (The fifth source, somewhat confusingly, appears to be a political party.) Thparkth ( talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

In response to what someone said earlier, nothing makes a side look weak like attacking the person instead of the arguement, or cussing, something to think about. Longevitydude ( talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Umm, as I've said, reasonable editors can differ about whether the presumption set up by the first several bullets of WP:GNG control or whether the final bullet of WP:GNG, setting up the terms for rebutting the presumption, controls. But we're talking about the same guideline. Neither view violates WP:NPOV. David in DC ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It appears that you wish to determine this matter based upon your own POV as to whether extreme age is notable. This is unacceptable as you are not a reliable source - you are just a random passerby with no special standing. The point of the guideline is to determine such matters by reference to independent third parties rather than taking a poll of whoever shows up at AFD. Your position violates multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I fail to see the RS argument here. These sources are virtually mirrors of one another, which another editor has pointed out above. Also, trivia is published in newspapers in various forms and at various times to make the readers feel all warm and cozy inside but that's not what an encyclopedia does. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and certainly not the society section of one. I don't see your position as any less of an opinion than that of David. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Respectable newspapers are commonly used as sources on Wikipedia and are quite satisfactory for establishing notability because their professional status and reputation indicate the independent and reliable nature of the interest in the topic. In this case, they include Gazet van Antwerpen and De Standaard which seem quite adequate for our purposes. The opinions of individual editors here are quite worthless by comparison and there is not the slightest policy basis for accepting them instead. AFD is not a vote and editors are expected to bring evidence to the discussion, not their personal opinions. Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Good ah point Colonel. I am going to think about re-evaluating my opinion now. I see the loggic in this, Thank you, Carolyn Baker III ( talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge.

I see several problems/issues with the "deletionist" arguments.

1. Notability is established by outside sources, not your personal opinion (Carolyn).

2. Some have said that persons cannot be notable for "old age" alone.

Yet if we run a Google search on news for "Eugenie Blanchard" we get more than 600 main articles in English, as well as other languages. So, that's a false argument.

Instead, the argument should be: "at what point does someone become notable for age"?

3. "Notability is not temporary." This is a poor argument. That is used for incidental, one-cycle news reports. But someone who is the "oldest man" in their nation, they have the title every day. And when they die, they are recorded as the titleholder. That's not temporary.

Do we say that, since George Kell won a batting title decades ago, he was notable in 1949 but not now? Also, we have every major league baseball player ever listed as "notable," coverage or not. Ryoung122 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Those that argue that this passes the GNG need to show that significant coverage in secondary sources has been met. There is coverage, and there are sources, but that coverage is not significant (I would expect a bio and what contributions he has made to society, for example), and the sources are not secondary (they are third-party, sufficient for WP:V, but give no insight, analysis, or synthesis that one would expect from secondary sources; the articles simply say "he's old, he lives here". -- MASEM ( t) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Discussion continues

  • Keep.for respect for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.30.79 ( talk) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — 94.227.30.79 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment: The above two are evidence of WP:CANVASSING. A previous serious charge of canvassing from a private list in a similar (merge) discussion occurs here. (I have also been accused of canvassing via a statement above, but the difference is that I informed everyone I was doing it and I notified two editors on one side and one workgroup on the other side.) JJB 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have no idea who those anonymous edits are from. That said, canvassing ON-WIKI is a violation of Wiki rules and within Wiki-jurisdiction. Posting material on a third-party site is not...it's outside Wikipedia. But in any case, that was a post regarding Longevity myths, not Jan Goossenaerts. 76.17.118.157 ( talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I'm going to assume 76.17 is Ryoung122 due to style without trying to remember which IPs he uses regularly, and I will accordingly accept this as an admission of the former canvass on the merge discussion and an attempted denial of canvassing in this discussion; so I am striking my charge. JJB 12:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone can be notable simply for being very old, in which case there will be plenty of coverage in the media. In this case there is only a small amount of coverage. If in time there is more coverage then the article can be re-created. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:GNG should control, not sentiment or WP:CRUFTCRUFT. I respect arguments that the existing cited coverage is not significant, but I disagree with them; the cites provide enough material to source a passable article from, which seems to me the most natural standard to use. — chaos5023 ( talk) 02:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Yes, the article is quite short, but I can see great potential for it to be improved. It is, in any case, a tad too long for a merged section as it has more information than any of the other living Belgian supercentenarians. Brendan ( talk, contribs) 07:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Another summary: Deletion/merge arguments:
    • WP:BASIC, as all articles but one arise from one insubstantial GRG-quoting nonindependent wire copy.
    • WP:IINFO: citing what people eat for breakfast is generally an indicator of nonnotability.
    • Trivial intersection ( compare): [oldest] [living] [verified] [male] [in-continent]. Previous merge consensus.
    • Significant WP:BIAS against several living Europeans who claim to be 110 but happen to lack three proximate documents.
    • Notability misstated, as we are told repeatedly "oldest" (which is disputed by above unverifieds) instead of "oldest verified".
    • No consistent WP:OUTCOMES formed by workgroup yet (line-item notability, thus merge, would be consistent).
    • Merge/redir is better consensus, allowed by Brendanology, Bsherr, Clarityfiend, Ryoung122, SiameseTurtle, and deleters.
    • Rebuttable presumption: "still doesn't seem notable given the sources" is valid consensus.
    • WP:CRYSTAL, as several argue that he will definitely become more notable. Call us when so.
    • WP:V, as we've been directed to inaccessible Yahoo WOP as a source.
    • WP:NOTNEWS speaks for itself.
    • WP:COI, WP:WALLEDGARDEN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPA.
  • Retention arguments:
    • WP:IHN; but if unsourced it would be an automatic delete, so it fails that.
    • WP:GNG; but of 5 links in article, 3 are identical, 1 is mirror, 1 is questionable.
    • Not one event; but coverage prior to 110 is only local Belgian, i.e., not continentally notable.
    • WP:RS exist; but it is the WP:BURDEN of the claimants to insert.
    • Such an astonishing variety of trivial illogic as to be left as an exercise for the reader. JJB 14:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Y'know, there's enough valid consensus in favor of a delete that you really didn't have to construct such a violently slanted "summary", and in my eyes doing so damages your position. I'm particularly unimpressed by the grasping at straws in dismissing sources that are merely "local Belgian". There's some consensus that "local news" sources generate lesser weight toward notability, but that consensus is in regard to e.g. community newspapers of Pothole, Idaho, not Belgium. — chaos5023 ( talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge no inherent notability in age.-- TM 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think some of the editors who want to delete this article are bias and assume bad faith, and I suspect meat, not sock, puppetry with JJB and a few of the others who want this article gone. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It is funny that you would accuse me of being a meatpuppet when I have been on Wikipedia approximately 3.5 years longer than you. Grow up and stop insulting others and accusing them of bad faith because this article was nominated for deletion.-- TM 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Sir, at least im grown up enough not to be using foul language, and the reasons for deletion don't sound like good faith, and neither does making an afd for a less than 20 minute old article. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Well, as to GNG, the third-party coverage of the 110th is not independent of the GRG, of which some of the keep !voters are members, and it's not significant. The sources are all taking his word for it without verification, so they're not independent or secondary in relation to him either. As to reliable, it would be more reliable if someone had reported reviewing the birth certificate (the GRG is only "tracking" him, not "verifying" him). And as to specific notability guidelines, where the workgroup has been negligent by not creating any, there is a general consensus shown by the U.S. article above that 110s with this degree of coverage belong in the list articles. But in short, your position comes down to saying that anybody who claims to be old enough to get newspaper reporters out there deserves a separate article, which is not much different from the radical inclusionism you deny above, nor from the WP:IINFO position. Even if I went further than you do, and took the position that all coverage of Jan was encyclopedic, it would still be better managed on a workgroup level (and thus an improvement) to merge and redirect, rather than to maintain a separate article that remains a stub at this date (along with all the other stubs). And that's before the walled-garden issues, plus the recently discovered issue that Longevitydude has claimed he was verified without providing any proof of that fact in all his sourcing. JJB 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Lists of centenarians As commented above, those 5 sources are mirrors of each other, and 4 of them are local newspapers. Fails WP:BASIC. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; just being the oldest person in a country isn't notable enough, and I note the paucity of non-mirrored sources. I'm not seeing how it even meets WP:BASIC, and kicking the heat to light ratio towards the former isn't helping the "keep" cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Discussion note: I have now analyzed the many late 2007 longevity AFDs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion recommendations, which I believe is the natural next discussion for editors to join as to the larger questions; naturally my analysis supports my delete-or-redirect position. JJB 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep 110 years old is notable. Sumbuddi ( talk) 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to one of the lists. He's only known for one thing, and the coverage is minimal. Quantpole ( talk) 15:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I note 15 keep votes, 14 delete votes (including 'merge'), and 3 keep/merge votes. Obviously all the (insert your opinion here) votes are backed by invalid reasoning, so that means the decision should be to (insert your opinon here). Sumbuddi ( talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to one of the lists per WP:BASIC.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Votecount a bit more accurately since Sumbuddi and Longevitydude have broken the suspense:
    • Delete without merge (11): Secret, Qworty, David in DC, NickOrnstein, Griswaldo, Masem, Resolute, Carolyn Baker III (thinking), Itsmejudith, MuZemike (weak), The Blade of the Northern Lights
    • Delete OR merge (4): Timneu22 (in later comment), John J. Bulten, Namiba (TM), Enric Naval
    • Merge (3): Clarityfiend, Quantpole, Jeff G.
    • Keep OR merge (7): Brendanology (in earlier comment), SiameseTurtle, Bsherr, Ryoung122, 62.235.160.79 (SPA per Ryoung122), Milowent (in earlier comment), GRuban (per others)
    • Keep without merge (9): Longevitydude, Petervermaelen, Ravenswing, Thparkth, Colonel Warden, Reyk (weak), 94.227.30.79 (SPA), Chaos5023, Sumbuddi
  • Total 34. By these basic and casuistic counts you have 15 delete, 14 merge, 16 keep, so there is clearly no consensus. By another method of counting you could take the first four as potentially preferring merge over keep (25), or the last four as potentially preferring merge over delete (23), but that is a standard middle-of-the-road argument and does not have extra probative value; you could just as well argue that cold deleters exceed cold keepers, although that too can be tweaked. If you take only the 3 "weak" or "thinking" as includible in merge, you get 17 and so it still might be the best consensus-achieving position. Strategically, if we close as NCDK it might get merged anyway, and if we close as merge/redirect it might get recreated anyway, and the discussion would resume. So the real question is, where to resume it and what will it say, and I propose we continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion recommendations. JJB 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I should add that I think NCDK (no consensus default keep) would be an abrogation of the closer's duties and a punt. Much better to make a firm choice based on strength of argument, not addressed by votecount, or to relist so that the project talkpage can decide this based on reaching a basic outcome consensus. JJB 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:VOTE Nutshell of Guideline: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care."
While not exactly evil, !voting presents significant problems. If I were an admin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd conclude the broadest consensus is that this isn't a WP:BIO, but that a redirect to a list is less objectionable to more editors than an outright delete. If I were king, which we all should be thankful I'm not, I'd take a blowtorch to a whole lot of stubs that strike me as hobbyist trivia and well within the dictates of WP:NOT.
If I were an admin, I'd also take note of the larger problem of the conflation of the GRG, WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People, the GWR, the GRG yahoo group - and the myriads of WP:CRUFT GRG has accreted into WP. Then I'd punt that whole issue to a colleague or colleagues whose judgment and equanimity I trusted and who wouldn't kill me for asking them to step into this viper's nest next.
Longevitydude's passion for knowledge is evident. As is his zeal for generic fairness and due respect for "allies" he admires. But his arguments above present prime facie evidence that the Wikipedia World's Oldest People WikiProject and its acolytes are explicitly out to do something other than build an encyclopedia. Taken together with the talk of leaders, and access to special yahoo group documents, and most of the rest of the carp on the WOP project pages (especially its talk page), there's a forest out there that needs serious pruning, of which this trivial stub is merely a symptom.
But we edit these articles one at a time. A close here need only address this tree. The larger forest can be discussed at an RfC, on a Noticeboard, or, as has been happening because the appropriate WikiProject has utterly failed to create a "common outcomes" protocol, one arbor at a time.
Enric Naval and The Blade of Northern Lights have both shed more light than heat above (metaphor stolen directly from BNL). If you take what they say about WP:BASIC and what I've said above about the interplay between the rebuttable presumption erected by the first several bullets of WP:GNG and the very example of an appropriate rebuttal to the presumption found WP:GNG's final bullet, the closing note for a delete or a redirect to a list is practically pre-written. David in DC ( talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep Since the article has been completely rewritten, and I appear to be the last person (including the original nominator) to revisit the AfD, it seems appropriate to close it instead of simply striking my original merge !vote. Jclemens ( talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Lisa Loopner (moved to The Nerds)

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

Nominating this mainly due to no references. Also, it is written as if this was a real person, and not a character in a skit. Probably needs to be merged into a relevant SNL article. The Eskimo ( talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular  talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Not sure why this is at AfD--if you're just looking for help for a merge destination, the talk page may be more help. Jclemens ( talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I appreciate your suggestion. To clarify, I usually AFD in these type of cases mainly because of no references. Lack of attribution has been a touchy subject on Jimbo's page, and others, of late. Also, it is my experience that pop-culture related articles (like SNL) have so many forks, and the discussion boards are so full of POV from people who honestly don't understand the policies, that AFD generally gets the job done in a more expedient fashion, and avoids pointless edit wars. Had the article been of a more academic subject, I probably would have just done a merge, and left a message on the talk page as you suggested. That said, still, I prefer deletion of articles written with no refs. These kind of subjects (pop culture) are not my cup of tea, and I am not going to go browsing around for refs just because the original editor failed to do it correctly the first time. The Eskimo ( talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The recurring sketch wasn't exactly a monologue by Gilda Radner. In books about SNL, it's usually referred to as "The Nerds", and there is some real world notability for the sketch. The show was sued by the person whose name Bill Murray borrowed and based his character on, and there were people who were upset by skits like the "Nerds Nativity" and Dan Aykroyd's refrigerator repairman. It would work as an article about the sketch. The biography is classic 2005 Wikipedia, a leftover from its sillier days. Mandsford 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks references to WP:verify notability which is grounds for deletion. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Refactoring comment. Substantial rewrite with new topic. Not sure what to make of it since I was commenting on Lisa Loopner. I'll keep my comment neutral since I don't know how to handle an AFD like this. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after its post-nomination improvements and the move to The Nerds with grateful kudos to User:Uncle G. While yes, the original article on Lisa Loopner was unreferenced, [16] and would deserve a redirect at best, the article as it now stands bears little resemblance to what was first nominated. Uncle G's superb rewrite and sourcing now show the notability for this iconic SNL sketch that Wikipedia requires. Good job that he recognized the potential and acted on WP:ATD. Perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal now that his original concerns have been so neatly addressed? Succinctly, his nomination was about a different article entirely... and this one is not it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Great job by the G-man in turning this article from an OR character-bio into one about a very notable series of sketches from the early days of SNL. Mandsford 14:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as nominator I applaude the initiative of Uncle G for rewriting the article. All my original concerns have been addressed. I am glad to see it remain as a good article and not in a merge. Closing as keep would be fine with me. The Eskimo ( talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Stella Award

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

Topic is non-notable and article is a likely BLP violation. The only references provided are either primary or can't be used to establish notability (Snopes). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

She appears to have passed six years ago [27], so the only concern would be with other living persons associated with that case. Since none of them appear to be named, I'm not sure I see the BLP angle. Kuru (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I wasn't aware she was deceased. I guess the BLP issue is a really a non-issue then. However, a Google News search for "Stella Awards" (both singular and plural) brought up zero hits for me, which is why I brought this to AfD. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Jacquelyn Ottman

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

I can't find significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I don't see that she meets the biography notability guidelines (specifically the creative professionals section) let alone the general notability guidelines -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep While the article feels as if its been polished with a slimy PR brush, it appears that the subject does have some recognition in independent sources, including NPR, Treehugger and a number of green groups. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • keep!! Please don't delete this! I can add more sources easily, she is a totally "notable" person in her field!!! She is a leader in the field of Green Marketing. I also don't want a "slimy PR" brush on it. How can I remove that. Please tell me how I can make this okay with wikipedia. HELP!!! User:Green31569{ Green31569 ( talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
  • Weak Delete An search for sources on Google or Google books finds immediate matches, however on a more detailed examination these invariably turn out to be mentions in books that are intended to list most players in this market or matches with text directly reproducing press releases by Ottman's company. Ottman appears to be a highly effective self-publicist, this results in plenty of tangential mentions or sound-bite quotes in "reliable sources" but these are weak evidence of the significant impact on the historic record that notability requires. My opinion for delete is weak however, as sources are still being added to the article and I would be happy to change to a keep if some substantial sources (not agency sites, PR re-writes or info-mercials) are recovered. Fæ ( talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • After a detailed review of the 11 footnoted citations (see the current article talk page), I find marketing promotional material, industry conference listings, tangential mentions (as a marketing expert) which do not discuss Ottman's notability and one independent interview which establishes her as an expert in her field but does not address impact on the historic record or make any claim to her wider notability. As a result of this detailed review I have now upgraded my opinion to delete as with the search for sources done so far only resulting in tangential or poor quality citations, I see little prospect of unambiguously addressing the notability criteria in the near future. Unfortunately as often happens with self-publicists, notability may be superficially claimed but fails to hold water when only supported by a flood of press release re-hashes and tangential mentions. Fæ ( talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • WP:BIO lists as a secondary criteria subject is "not irrelevant" It seems you are applying the standard of fame while overlooking the fact this subject is not irrelevant within the field of green marketing. My76 Strat 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • keep!! Please !!!I have added many new sources. Please change your weak delete User:Green31569{ Green31569 ( talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
Why not actually add some of those cites to the article to demonstrate notability? WikiuserNI ( talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

John H. Halpern

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

This researcher has a h-index of 11 [29]. I don't know if he qualifies for a biography according to WP:ACADEMIC. It's true that the biography of another researcher with the same h-index, William Connolley has been "SNOW kept" at AfD. I guess we're going to find out if that's a good standard or not. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

TestOut Corporation

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

Speedy declined as admin felt company may be notable. Google search returns no reliable sources, likewise no coverage of this corporation via Google News. Fails WP:ORG and more generally WP:GNG. Furthermore, article is mostly sourced to self-published sources (see criterion 5 of linked subsection) and comes across like spam or an advertisement for the company. Delete. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Tawnee Stone

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

No evidence of notability, fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO Tabercil ( talk) 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Suiku

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

Unreferenced quasi-nonsense article; probably either hoax or duplicate of hokku. No response from creating editor. Nothing relevant found on Google Web or Google Books, or Japanese Wikipedia candyworm ( talk) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy. Consensus is clear that this is a WP:BLP1E and a redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy makes sense and gets strong support here. Davewild ( talk) 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Nicky Diaz

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

Blatant case of WP:BLP1E. This is not a biography; it's an article about a political controversy involving defeated California governor candidate Meg Whitman. I'm not convinced there's any long-term notability here; if not outright deleted, this should be cut down and merged into Meg Whitman or California gubernatorial election, 2010. Robofish ( talk) 11:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • 3 hours after the polls close the job of burying the bodies begins. If this was worthy of post in wiki in the first place then it should stay around until we discover her reward or lack of one for being part of the political campaign and the conclusion of her lawsuit. To do less would imply that this information was run only for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.80 ( talk) 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It was for only political purposes IMO. Arzel ( talk) 02:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not even worth a search term, complete 1Event, political hackery situation. This is about as clear of a WP:BLP1E as one sees; another otherwise non-notable person who has no desire for the public spotlight. Tarc ( talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as the article indicates she became the face of undocumented workers in America, her story generated protest marches throughout the Largest state in the US. Her case likely was the downfall of Meg Whitman who spent over $119 million of her fortune to become governor. Not only is there much more than one event there is still the hearing in December. There are tons of news stories including LA Weekly, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, Sacramento Bee, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press, Huffington Post, CNN, PBS Newshour, Contra Costa Times, and San Francisco Chronicle among many others. And the Meg Whitman article already has a very brief overview of a complicated story, Diaz is not a footnote of Whitman but a victim of hers, Diaz deserves a neutral telling of the facts not a watered down spin cycle. Munijym ( talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E This person has done absolutly nothing of note. If this is the criteria for article acceptance then anyone that has ever published anything, or ever been in the news for anything should have an article. Arzel ( talk) 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

"After all the tens of millions of dollars that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has spent to build her brand as a corporate CEO ready to take on California's myriad crises, the story told by an undocumented maid from the East Bay may prove to be her undoing. Nicandra Diaz Santillan, of Union City, who for nine years cleaned Whitman's toilets and washed her family's laundry, has almost single-handedly rewritten the narrative of the governor's race in a way that Democratic candidate Jerry Brown couldn't have dreamed up." Carboload ( talk) 02:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think you're really understanding the gist of WP:BLP1E. How many sources talk about her or how important you (and I'll note that you and Munijym have edited pretty much exclusively in this topic area) think the subject is; if they are only known for one event and are otherwise unimportant, then that generally fails our notability criteria. Tarc ( talk) 13:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Those of you who are insisting that this is not even worth a search term, completely non-notable, etc. - I assume you are not from California. This was a big story here, and her name is likely to remain a search term for quite a while. I don't think she is notable enough to have an article (those who do think so seem to be offering political arguments rather than encyclopedic ones), but I do think her name should be retained as a redirect, as I suggested above. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect from California, agree with Melanie. DocOfSoc ( talk) 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • From BLP1E - "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So, California, the largest US state with an economy bigger than most nations, is having a gubernatorial election in one of the most divisive mid-term cycles. The campaign of Whitman, who would be the first female governor of the state and is noted for spending more millions on her own candidacy than any other person in history has her tightly scripted campaign upended by ... Nicky Diaz. Over a series of events and press conferences The critical Latino vote - that Whitman spent an unprecedented amount to get - melts away as Nicky Diaz's story is repeated to Latino and independent voters. These facts are recounted in numerous political assessments before and after the election is over. The controversy is way too large for the Whitman article and is only summarized there, the story is quite large for any other article really and the story is as yet unfinished as the court date was moved to November 17th. Of the post-election news reports I've seen each has mentioned this story as the turning point or pivotal event shaping Whitman's popularity among Latino voters and thus the election. Certainly not one event and well deserving of an article on it's own. I think a "housekeeper controversy" article would be worse and would lose the context of a person who became teh face of undocumented workers.
  • Here is a sampling of recent news reports. I'm sure the Latino press will also cover this story in great length and detail and the entire episode will be a lesson in immigration politics especially in the 2012 elections.:

Nov 1

Nov 3

Nov 4

Nov 5

Nov 6

Nov 7

Nov 8

Nov 9

I think this demonstrates this is not a one event nor is it a story going away. There are some interesting contrasts between the millionaire politician brought down by the undocumented worker she turned her back on and the Latino voting block that both parties will have to cater to more. Munijym ( talk) 12:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

All of these links show that this person is the epitome of 1E. She did not and does not seek the spotlight herself, she is a woman whose name was unfortunately dragged into the spotlight becase someone more famous tha her did something wrong. Compare this to the Gordon Brown incident where he referred to a woman as a bigot on a live mic by mistake. we has huge, raging discussions about whether she should have an article or not; thankfully common sense prevailed, and her name is just a redirect to the incident. Tarc ( talk) 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

BLP1E I think has been addressed and the same worldwide notable coverage would also cover WP:ONEVENT, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." The question remains to cover this as "housekeeper controversy" or more accurately as about Nicky. Also for "one event" it is going into it's second month of coverage. It seems analogous to saying Monica Lewinsky and the Lewinsky affair were just one event and it all should be merged into Bill Clinton. I think it's much too soon to state that and many news outlets are citing Nicky's case, the statewide protests and usage of the story as swaying the key Latino votes away from Whitman. Munijym ( talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Our policies and guidelines are not firmly written in stone, and the 1E bit quite clearly explains that there are exceptions if the event itself is of significant, critical importance. A guy who shoots a president and a blowjob that nearly brought down a presidency| certainly pass that test. A political scandal for a candidate who did not even win the election? Not so much. It's worth a footnote, at best, in the main article. As for persistence of coverage, it is largely over. There are a few articles in the last few days analyzing why Whitman lost, pinning this incident as one of the reasons, but that is all. It certainly is far, far out of the Page 1 headlines. Tarc ( talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this is a very significant event but I wonder how much should be placed in the article as context. To go on the blowjob that nearly brought down a presidency example this is the fired undocumented maid that brought down the billionaire candidate: How a $23 per hour Mexican maid voided the impact of Meg Whitman’s $140,000,000 ad blitz.. Before this story erupted the two candidates were in a very tight race and Whitman had spent, I believe, more to get Latino voters than any other candidate. California is the largest state in the US and it's economy dwarfs that of most countries (I think it's the 9th largest in the world). If she won the then-close election she would not only have made a case for money well spent but also be the first female governor of the state, making her one of the more influential women in the nation/world. It would also set her up as the vice-presidential candidate for 2012 presidential election and would have been a strong tipping point in the 2012 election putting the state very much into play. California has almost always been an influential state in many respects of politics and business. This is a huge story that is reported on worldwide and it is not a single event but an ongoing story. [Meg_Whitman#Housekeeper_controversy]] is a very small and hand-picked/cleansed version favoring Whitman's side, that's expected. To include the relevant content of this very new article in that section would be eliminating most of the context and impact. I'm sorry but really if there are protest marches around the state in your honor there's a good chance it is not a fleeting story. The woman has become the face of undocumented workers and she is a hero to many Latinos. I've added some more sources but I also wanted others to see if there is more in the Spanish-language press. Munijym ( talk) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Air Horizon Afrique

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

There are no independent sources to be found that offer significant coverage on this airline, which is required to pass WP:CORP. Non of the fleet directories have any aircraft listed for this airline, so it either operates only very small aircraft, or it did never operate any flights at all, which would indicate that the airline is of no encyclopedic relevance. Actually, I can't even verify that the company still exists. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 10:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Smart Traffic

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim ( talk) 10:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Michael Spiegel

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

Subject of the article has posted to WP:BLPN requesting deletion due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues. No actual opinion expressed about AFD by nominator, procedural nom. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Johnny Massacre

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sole claim to notability is for producing two tracks for a game that won an award, but neither of the two references given names him, and one of them credits another producer by name. Nothing online about the two being the same person, and the only reference cited linking the two is the subject's own Facebook page. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim ( talk) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • The other producer Luke Geoghegan produced the track with John Murray Hill/Johnny Massacre.
You can see on John Murray Hill's facebook the link to Twin Vulcan which is his record label ... because he *is* Johnny Massacre: http://www.facebook.com/tokyoneon
Also, proof that Johnny Massacre is Don John "The Bastard" is on Johnny Massacre's MySpace blog. There is an old post from 2006 where he refers to himself as Don John "The Bastard" here: http://www.myspace.com/thelastrealdjalive/blog --- Read the first ever entry at the bottom. It says, referring to himself in the third person, "Don John "The Bastard"... quite simply... went to bed."
Don John "The Bastard" even has a very old MySpace ... look at the picture ... it is Johnny Massacre: http://www.myspace.com/40788866 ... There is even a very old website made for Don John The Bastard by a student: http://volatilecycle.com/2222website/ Look at the pictures of Don John "The Bastard" it is the same as Johnny Massacre.
The conclusive proof comes again from this website: http://volatilecycle.com/2222website/ Listen to the song that plays when you enter the website, titled 'Chelsea Girlz' by Don John "The Bastard". It is the SAME song that Johnny Massacre says he is about to release as a new single in 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8oYEfSjn4k JohnnyMassacre ( talk) 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm not seeinga clear consensus either way here. There is a tension between N and POLITICIAN that has yet to be clearly resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Patrick Murray (politician)

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Murray (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As indicated in the AfD that just closed a few hours ago after Murray lost the election, he is a non-notable army officer, who did not come even close to being elected to Congress. Racepacket ( talk) 09:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or redir - Local, routine coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should have just been tossed the first time around, along with many others. Tarc ( talk)
  • Procedural Close Abuse of process. As indicated by the nom, the last AfD only closed a few hours before this one opened. I don't believe that any policies have changed significantly in that time. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (See below for rationale for alternate outcome) reply
  • Bold redirect - plausible search term and to keep history in the unlikely chance he eventually runs again and wins. The article creation and subsequent original AfD were premature, as the outcome of the AfD depends on the outcome of the election. I see no reason to procedurally close this one, but perhaps in the future temporarily close AfDs of political candidates until election results are known.-- 137.122.49.102 ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Close - Article just had a deletion discussion that closed concluding that the article should be kept. I highly doubt the grace period between AfD nominations is several hours. -- NINTENDUDE 64 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not feel that a procedural close is the correct thing to do here. The original AfD had been (along with some other political AfDs) timed to end on election day. There would have been an argument for the procedural close of those as an abuse of the AfD process, but the consensus on the last AfD was that it should be kept until the results of the election were known - I should have been clearer about that in my closure, sorry. When I closed the last AfD, I did not have the results before me (I did not in fact think that they had been released at that time), so I closed it as a keep. Now that the results are known, I feel that this is a perfectly valid renomination: otherwise I would not have added my recommendation above. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

POLITICIAN is not the guideline to be followed, this candidate still meets the GNG requirements as he has had plenty of coverage:

A number of papers from accross the country found the endorsement of Murray by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee (CCAGW PAC) notable enough to cover, those include but are not limited to: MSNBC, Rueters, Forbes, Denver Post, SF Chronicle Furthermore, let's look at whether or not people are seeking this article out? In June it had 205 hits, 252 in July, 497 in August, 898 in September, 2916 in October... (I did a random search and all but 1 of the 10 articles I looked at were hit in 2-300 range.) Obviously, people see him as notable enough to seek him out here.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment WP:GNG is independent of WP:POLITICIAN; it is not superseded by it. If his military career received significant coverage even within the campaign, then he passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Whether that coverage was trivial and incidental to the news reporting during an election year is what we should be considering here. Ray Talk 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Agreed, the question is, Is the coverage trivial in nature, "Murray went on a campaign stop" that's trivial in nature. Or is it, "Here are the issues Murray is campaigning on", "here is the bio of the candidate", does the person get significant coverage? We can't pick and choose what constitutes GNG based upon an interpretation of POLITICIAN. GNG supercedes POLITICIAN, not the other way around.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Balloonman in this particular case, but we clearly need better guidelines following a thorough discussion. At most, this should be a merge and redirect, not under any circumstances a delete. Flatterworld ( talk) 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - is non-notable per MILHIST guidelines WP:MILMOS/N as well as the other guidelines cited above. The only coverage appears to be recent election related coverage (which he lost) and as such this would seem to indicate only passing interest per WP:NOTNEWS. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I may be a little biased, as I am the creator of the article, but Patrick Murray is unlikely to be gone completely from Northern Virginia politics, and he has received national attention, including an interview on Fox News and several other articles and interviews with national news affiliates. So I think a keep would be best here. ~ BLM ( talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – Article just had a AfD which resulted in keep; it should not be AfD'd again so soon after that. - LtNOWIS ( talk) 20:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This has come up a couple of times now and even the bloke who closed the last AfD has now voted to delete... can you please provide the reference for this policy? Anotherclown ( talk) 06:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
If nobody besides the nominator had recommmended deletion, it would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK Section 2.3. Following the spirit of that guideline says that renominating an article within hours of its last AfD closure without any new information, policy change, or significantly different delete arguments is disruptive. If the decision was that he was notable before the election, and notability is not temporary, then there is no policy based cause to delete now. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know about policy, but a "keep" decision is just that, a decision by the community to keep the article. It's not "we can't agree on what to do;" that would be "no consensus." Therefore, it's bad form to immediately re-nominate an article directly after there's been consensus to keep it. If you can re-nominate right after a keep decision, than the keep decision is essentially meaningless. I would not be opposed to waiting awhile and then re-nominating, like they did for Murray's predecessor in the district, Mark Ellmore. - LtNOWIS ( talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
And yet a few of the 'keep' votes during the last AfD seemed to be only temporary... a few even said 'keep, temporarily' or 'keep during the election' or words to that effect. Perhaps the previous AfD came to the wrong conclusion? Anotherclown ( talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know where there is any policy to allow for those kind of comments in an AfD. Accordingly, the admin who closed made the decision he could - keep. If that decision was incorrect, then this belongs at DRV, not in a second AfD three six hours after the original close. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • comment - I should note that I just removed two "references" from the article, one sourced to a blog and the other to a radio station repeating something from examiner.com (a "reader-written" non-reliable source), and both of which were definite BLP violations attacking Murray's opponent). I am of course assuming good faith on the part of Jim Miller. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seeing as no admin has closed this nomination yet for being too soon after the intial nomination and decisive keep, I must note that absent a procedural close I believe that the article should be kept. The prior AfD was closed as Keep without noted exception or explanation, and any after the fact explanations should not be relevant to the re-openeing of the discussion. There is no policy-based allowance for a "Provisional Keep" or a "Temporary Keep." The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:V through international coverage in The Irish Times and The Telegraph, as well as national coverage in the National Review. While my opinion is that all major party candidates for federal office are notable, this particular campaign attracted far wider than normal coverage and clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Quantile. and move to Tercile Jujutacular  talk 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

TERCILE

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - WP:NOTDIC (and it's not even the right definition anyway) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TV5. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

TV5 Global

TV5 Global (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources I could find on this article were Wikipedia, Youtube, and Twitter, which are clearly not reliable. Perhaps some could find better ones than I did, but right now, this falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

City Life (nightclub)

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

Fails WP:CORP. Minor curiosity at the abandoned Dixie Square Mall, has had no references since its creation four years ago, and a search on Google and Highbeam Research gave no indication of any reliable sources existing. I would have speedied this as A7, but considering the article has been around so long, I want to ensure that all the bases are properly covered. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Lennie dean

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. E. Fokker ( talk) 03:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree; there is no documentation available about her "many roles," and the sole reference is a clip of a recording of a play. -- NDSteve10 ( talk) 04:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete all. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Fortress Of Freedom

Fortress Of Freedom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
Maurice Ali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
International Association of Independent Journalists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
FOF Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
The Fortress Newspaper (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
The Life And Times Of Donald "Boots" Brasseur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
Donald "Boots" Brasseur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
AAVRY KNAPP (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics


A collection of related articles created by user User:Sprams, all featuring related apparently non-notable people and organizations, all with similarly poor and unverifiable sourcing. In fact the same unverifiable sources are used for all of these articles. I believe these should be deleted because there is no independent evidence of notability.

I suggest that those reading take the time to investigate at least a few of these articles in-depth, and in particular pay attention to the references given for each article. You will find that the following sources are the only ones used in all of these articles:

  • A single article, "Media Organization On The Move" from a publication called "The Stump" whose ISSN (1925-0444) I cannot find in any database. Even if it exists, I suspect it of being self-published, and in any case a single article can hardly lend notability to such a diverse range of subjects.
I also found NO EVIDENCE that this exists in any form. Though I did find a segment in The New Republic called The Stump... isn't it ironic? - Addionne ( talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Various references to unremarkable Government of Canada business registration entries, corporation registrations, routine statutory publications in the Canada Gazette, and CRTC filings. These serve to confirm the existance of the various entities, but do nothing to demonstrate notability.
  • A book, "A Slant On Life And Living" with an ISBN which cannot be verified, but which I assume is self-published.
Turns out this an album released by FOF records and a related book of sheet music published by FOF. Unless it is REALLY BIG, page 9 of this book cannot possibly contain enough info about all these subjects to count as significant coverage for each. - Addionne ( talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Sundry vaguely-related sources such as the audience figures for a radio station which allegedly carried Fortress of Freedom material.

In particular it's worth noting that the TV audience figures claimed in the Fortress Of Freedom article seem to be misleading; it is clear from the clip of the show on the fortressoffreedom.com website that the show was a paid broadcast, infomercial style. (For future reference, the clip begins with a disclaimer at 00:52; "The following program is presented as a paid advertisment. The opinions, statements, representations, and/or warranties contained in the said program explicit or implied are those of the participant and/or sponsor.")

It is clear that the association, Maurice Ali, the newspaper, the record company, the documentary and the documentary subject are all closely related, and there is no evidence of notability for any of them other than the references to sources clearly under the editorial control of the subjects themselves.

In short none of these tightly inter-related articles demonstrate any evidence of notability from an editorially-independent source.

Delete all as nominator. Thparkth ( talk) 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Correction - as he points out below, some of these articles were created by User:Tafyug. This does not affect my deletion rationale. Thparkth ( talk) 12:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree, without any further outside sources, these appear to be well-crafted self-promotion and little more. -- NDSteve10 ( talk) 04:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Strong Keep all: Since the OP states the articles were written by Sprams I guess I can participate in the discussion. Instead of judging each article individually the OP has nominated they all be judged in bulk and deleted. Voting seems to endorse this as all or nothing so I am making comments as such. In these eight articles, we are dealing with mostly separate individuals and corporations which are also separate legal entities. The only constant unifying entity for all articles is a brown skinned Muslim man called Maurice Ali. It is debatable whether Mr. Ali's book published by a corporation is self-published, the reference is only for identification purposes anyway. Getchell's book is definitely not self-published for that same reason. The newspaper is published by FOF Inc. with input from the non-profit but that is as far as it goes. It has no relationship now to the archiving corporation or the record label or Donald Brasseur, so really should be a valid reference in those cases. I am pretty sure the ISSN on "The Stump" publication is valid and don't know why it does not work for the OP. Anyway those are just side issues and here are the main arguments:
1. Donald Brasseur. For musical artists one valid point of notability (good enough for an article to stand) is a half-hour show devoted to the artist which appeared on July 26, 2010, But I will offer evidence that Don has been the subject of two shows from the 1950s through BBC and one show with CBC in the nineties (one clip also shows some morning show with CITY TV here in Toronto before the CBC clip). I started that article and it has Don's service number (War experience and medals) that can be traced through the DOD here in Canada. I have radio recordings and video recordings with plenty evidence that Donald Brasseur is notable without a doubt. Only thing is that Don is 85 and his last interview was seventeen years ago with the CBC - well before the Internet, Google and the wayback machine. So the only Internet material comes from these various sources related by the brown skinned Muslim man Maurice Ali. But I have read the notability requirements and they state that an article can not be deleted if there is a good possibility those sources could be located. I am sure with effort the CBC show could be located. The CTV show is definitely able to locate and that is more than enough to keep both of Don's articles. Since this is an all or nothing affair, I guess they all stay.
http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv
http://iaij.com/CityTV_CBC.wmv
http://www.donaldbrasseur.com/DonBrasseurAM740.wma
http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4958#4958
http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121
With regard to the television programs, they are real TV programs and not infomercials or advertisements you have the Certification numbers so Google it and you will find it in the French and English listings from the CRTC website. Both networks review the material for suitability and are under absolutely no obligation to air it - so the show really made it on the air as any other TV show. I have two files with the certification letters:
http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121
http://fortressoffreedom.com/CRTC4.jpg
A show that starts off by saying "What you are about to see is an experiment in free speech" will always have the usual disclaimer at the beginning (BTW, the guy in that half hour TV show is the lead person in AAVRY KNAPP - also up for deletion as non-notable)


2. Since the OP has nominated a bulk deletion, he has allowed me the opportunity to enter in an argument that can't be considered with an individual article deletion discussion, but since this is a bulk debate it looks like we can finally expect an answer: With regard to the not-for-profit journalist association:
Why are we picking on this article (connected to the brown skinned Muslim guy) which at least presents references when the vast majority of associations in the category (Canadian Journalist Associations) do not have a single reference and has in some cases stood for years like that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Association_of_Journalists
CJA has the largest number of members and largest professional number of journalists and does not have a single reference (actually that is kind of laughable when you think about it). The "pat" response for individual deletion requests is that each article is evaluate individually but since we are doing it en-mass here the question is now valid. Since I believe this debate is resolved by someone with official status, we should receive a reply outside of the standard response. The same argument can be used for the newspaper article and for the record label article.
3. And as for the bio of the brown skinned Muslim guy Maurice Ali, well one of Wikis administrators worked on the bio and did not seem to think it had any red flags - just saying there are more opinions on that article which may not be the same as the OPs.


Finally, when I saw this deletion request I sent a message to the journalist org (IAIJ) that they might want to see the Wiki machine in action, so we may or may not get an article out of this - up to them - just saying many eyes are watching this (if they do I suspect they will forward a draft to your chief people/founder for response as quoting "Klingon272 said" just does not seem journalistic ). Wiki's main objective was to archive all of human knowledge, wholesale deletions of articles like this do not seem to follow that objective. Nobody has claimed the articles are a hoax, just that the references are weak. The OP seems to have requested a Sprams article be deleted a week or two ago and was merged/redirected by an administrator, that is now again up for deletion - just showing that the OP has been doing this before to articles connected to the brown skinned man with a Muslim name. These articles are not being given the chance for other editors to find references to improve it, AAVRY KNAPP has only been up a few days and Don's show less than 24 hour before being lumped in here for deletion. Read all the notability and reference criteria, none of it is absolute, and this is done deliberately (you will read "Articles should instead of Articles "must" - things like that).
Let the debate continue (BTW, I have been photographing/archiving the pages in question, Just an FYI). Oh! Here is the audience figures the OP said were vague and could not find, it took me all of thirty seconds ( http://zoomerradio.ca/about/ ). They claim half a million and I 548,000 and I bet with more search we can nail down that number. Pity the OP did not try to improve the articles and instead just offered all of them up for deletion. And remember to wear your poppy for Remembrance Day (November 11), hopefully Donald - who took a bullet/shrapnel for us in WW2 - does not celebrate that day with his life story being deleted at Wikipedia.
Tafyug ( talk) 11:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply - I would like to respond briefly to the points Tafyug has raised. 1. The Donald Brasseur documentary was clearly aired as paid programming. This page on fortressoffreedom.com clearly shows the contract itself with CTV (search for "contract from CTV") with the heading "PAID PROGRAMMING CONTRACT". This means that we are dealing with what is essentially a self-published TV show. Not a problem in any way, except that it means it can not be used to establish notability, in the same way that it could if CTV had commissioned or purchased the show as regular content with commercial value. 2. I can only assure you that skin colour is not a factor here. 3. Without seeing the wider picture across all of these articles, it may not have been obvious to another editor that the notability claim for Mr. Ali depends entirely on sources that he either controls or is closely connected to. Finally, I did not previously nominate any of these for deletion, but I did add notability and primarysources tags to one of them, which may be what Tafyug is referring to. Thparkth ( talk) 11:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. The nominator is not denigrating Islam or people of Middle Eastern-descent, and it's a silly ad hominem and in bad faith to accuse him as such. His rationale for deletion is that it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies ( WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS), and the articles clearly do not. Wikipedia's guidelines are flexible, but there is no reason why these entries should be exempt from the same scrutiny that is applied to every other article. No amount of pathos changes that.-- hkr Laozi speak 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Also, the argument that other unreferenced articles exist is a flawed one. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. If they were nominated, they could possibly be deleted as well (depending on whether reliable sources exist, and simply are not included).-- hkr Laozi speak 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - also Delete. I encourage you to check out WP:AGF and read about Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith on the part of all editors. Your accusations of racism and dramatic appeal about veterans above are unfounded, unnecessary - and provide no value to this discussion. These articles were nominated because they do not show notability. That does not mean none exists, but that the nominator did not feel they had enough coverage in reliable sources. I agree. If you can track down more sources, please add them to the article. Otherwise, my argument is Delete.
- Addionne ( talk) 11:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The nominator's points are sound, in that the sources provided are problematic. I can confirm that the subjects exist, which is good as far as it goes, but I'm not seeing anything that really shows notability, under our rules. I would add, in reference to one of the Keep comments above, that claiming that the nominator is racist is precisely the wrong argument to make in this case. It might be different if the nomination was "Delete because subject is of X race". But that's not the case here. You may also wish to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you're correct that we review these articles as a group, rather than as individual subjects, but that does not mean that the existence (or absence) of other related articles has any impact on whether these articles should be kept. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. A couple of things. First of all this interrelated argument is flawed. If the Brasseur show was produced by Fireworks and lobbied by Canwest to play on Global TV and then written about in the National Post, nobody would see a problem with notability. But all those corporations are - or were - owned/controlled by the same entity/people. The multi-faceted organization (in the subject articles for deletion) was patterned after the big multinational media conglomerates and is the reason it has the agility to do what it does. It does it the same way the bigger companies do it. But the ultimate reach through the broadcaster is the same - the end product is the same. The Fortress of Freedom Corporation did not put the CTV show on the air, the More Vision Corporation (and it's subsidiary) were the ones that put the show on the air. The vast majority of movie/television/music productions are produced this way - just ask Sony. But these articles are being attacked while the others are not, even though the principle and end result are the same. This "is" prejudice (as used in the abstract sense). Think about it.
Speaking of prejudice, I never said the OP was racist this is you other people connecting the dots. I was just making statements of fact. I no more said the OP was racist than I no more said the OP was, for example, motivated by professional jealousy or a combination of both.
Donald Brasseur has the same physical distance from the production house that taped the show and the record company that sold his music and the advertising company that aired ads for the show on CIUT and put it on CTV. In the eyes of the law, government and the telecommunications regulators, the subject organization and the multinational media conglomerates are exactly the same. The articles in the paper "The Fortress Newspaper" are just as valid for him as he has no prejudicial connection to it. Funny how nobody wants to concentrate on Donald Brasseur. Tafyug ( talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. I think you would agree that companies like Canwest/Global are established as reliable sources. As publicly-traded companies, their editorial procedures are transparent - and they are held responsible by their shareholders to maintain their ethics and journalistic integrity. If the National Post reports on a story that has any shred of public interest, it is subsequently reported by countless other media outlets with their own independent fact-checking departments checking every detail.
To say that Fortress of Freedom, Inc. does not have complete control over the Fortress newspaper is highly questionable: The two companies share a website and a phone number. (All the companies share these contact details, as a matter of fact...) One of the phone numbers is the *home number* of the founder, M. Ali - the other is a cell phone, which we can fairly assume is his. Having a cell phone number as the primary contact for your business does not detract from notability, but it makes me question the newspaper as a valid, reliable source for the other articles. None of the companies has listed a verifiable street address for contact. There is NO contact information for the UK office of any of the companies. There is scarcely enough to prove the existence of these companies, let alone their reliability as sources.
As for Donald Brasseur - the burden here lies on the article's writers to provide proof of notability. It may be that there was a BBC or CBC interview or TV special from 15 years ago. It may also be that I am the kid playing hockey on the back of the five dollar bill, but if I can't provide supporting evidence of any form, we have to assume I am not. If you find any evidence of it, bring that information here, because it would go A LONG WAY to providing some justification why Mr. Brasseur should have an article. - Addionne ( talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply. First of all I thank you all for looking around that organization, as more people eye it and look for weakness, the better it seems to look around here. First of all, the publicly traded corporations are accountable to the shareholders for profitability more than anything else. The journalists and editors have their opinions bought and sold by their paychecks and advertising dollars. I don't trust anything they say. The Fortress Paper is published and owned by a private corporation. If ownership was by sole-proprietorship then I would agree that company is the same as the individual that owns it and thus clearly self-published, that is the "why" of incorporation. BTW, many of the largest papers in Canada are published by individuals. The integrity of the paper is assured by the company giving full editorial control of the paper to a non-profit journalist association where the Board of Directors and other matters are voted upon by the membership - membership of which is open to all regardless of race, creed, or color. Journalists are not paid but report out of a sense of civic duty, Nobody or entity at that organization influences what any particular journalist reports. The papers have zero advertising and thus will never have editorial influence on the journalists and editors. As such, The Fortress Newspaper conforms most closely to the truest forms of journalistic integrity . Money to pay for the paper comes from another corporation that archives journalist credentials mostly in the Third World for those journalists who's rights under Article 19 are not guaranteed in their country and could be revoked at any time. Other sources of money are from the membership dues and other small projects under group control. The papers are printed cheapest way and are manually folded and collated by the membership to save costs. This whole paper and journalist org was a business plan set up to deal with the vacuum ultimately being created by the loss of small time newspapers that is happening as we speak. The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ are some of the oldest organizations which embraced the citizen journalist. At a meeting with the Special Advisor to the Secretary General at The Canadian Commission for UNESCO, IAIJ founder Maurice Ali and one of the directors (the mysterious person from the U.K. office who flew over for the meeting) were told that they were the first such organization they had ever dealt with. As of this moment they are still in negotiations to become members with the Commission. So they are breaking ground here. As I said before, The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ conform, by their structure and philosophy, closest to the purist form of journalistic integrity and their citations should carry as much weight - if not more - than the big profit motivated newspapers. For any students following this out there, these underfunded papers of irregular publication are your future and organizations such as Wikipedia are going to have to, sooner or later, set clear policy "and" accommodate newspaper organizations such as The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ. We may as well start that dialogue right here.

So yes, if I am to be the only one to fight for these articles, I am not going to look for other sources to validate them, I am going to take a stand and prove that the present sources are as good if not better than the usual suspect sources. I think that is the way the people at that organization would want it. As for the phone numbers and lack of address at the site, all that information is out there if you really look, or you could call and ask. They are small and proud of it, but have the influence and media access of billion dollar companies. I think that concept is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafyug ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment - Question. I have a question for anyone versed in the workings of Wiki. Realize that as much as I adore those articles I was involved with up for deletion, they are just eight out of a possible 3,500,000 in English Wiki. That said, I am faced with the decision as to go ahead and try to lobby for change/amendment to what constitutes reliable sources and associated policies. I am still new here, but I suspect no matter what arguments are listed here, that the articles will be deleted (though these arguments could be used as reference points to a request to open discussion for possible policy amendments and changes). This is because Wiki policy in this case will rule in the end, so it should be amendment of such policy/policies to prevent further problems with other articles. If that is so:


Does the instigator for this change have to be the affected user account, or could this be handed off to another individual/individuals or organization?


Realize that my debating skills and mental abilities are too feeble to trust in such an undertaking, but I will try if that is the only way. Seeing that no "smoking gun" was found as yet to discredit the newspaper or journalist association, I feel they are good candidates to bring forth in such a discussion for change and amendment. Such changes would affect millions of articles and editors so I think maybe this is worth the effort. Tafyug ( talk) 13:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Keep I only noticed Thparkth's notice about the deletions today so I am a bit late to the discussion. I started editing here after seeing one of the Tafyug articles show up in the search engine. I think two of the above are mine. I say keep but not strong keep as when I step back and look at the articles they are not in the best shape they could be in, but there seems to be indications for improvement if allowed to develop. Certainly Donald Brasseur is salvageable, almost positive it is. If you look at this clip (from Donald's televison show and yes it is a real TV show as I saw it) http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv you will see Donald Brasseur leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clippings. I should repeat that: He is leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clipping! If he is still alive it should be a simple matter to note some of the newspapers and articles and replace The Fortress Newspaper and nefarious The Stump citations. I am sure that article will meet Wikipedia standards. As for the other articles, realize that what I see is an underfunded group of organizations populated by well meaning and intentioned people working free for altruistic purposes. They have made some notable achievements and have staying power and probably the articles should be left with notability tags to try and save them and then be revisited a later date. Certainly the articles deserve this as I continually come across law firms and real estate companies and investment companies masquerading as encyclopedic articles which should be deleted on the spot. Sprams ( talk) 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Finally I am appalled at the over the top actions of two people on both sides of this debate. I see strong indications that both work in the television industry and that much of the ill thought out actions and insults arise because of this and are unbecoming and not in the best interests of the Wikipedia organization. This whole thing should and could have been handled in a better way. Oh, and Tafyug, save the Wiki world another day, you have more important things to do with your time. That is all I have to say. Sprams ( talk) 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Sprams, I must admit that out of all of these articles, Donald Brasseur is the one that I am least happy about having nominated for deletion. I think there is a good chance that notability could be established for him based on those press clippings - if the details of some of them could be added to the article. Thparkth ( talk) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Reply: From the scrap book video I found a signed letter from Jack Marshall of the "New Musical Express" returning some photos to Don and stating the article in the magazine, the page and the date of the publication and have used this as a reference. One television segment in the above videos (CityTV_CBC) was a segment from "Adrienne Clarkson Presents" CBC (November 29, 1990) and is confirmed here:

http://www.tvarchive.ca/database/16181/adrienne_clarkson_presents/episode_guide/ That is what I got from the stuff here before breakfast and I think there are seventeen more citations possible from what I have seen but would require a personal visit to get the clippings and examine them. Donald Brasseur is definately notable.

Similarly, notability in a media company (certainly a record label) were notable performers and are one test of a record label's notability. This can be conferred by a notable performer under contract. In this case Donald Brasseur is signed to FOF Records through Fortress Of Freedom Inc. (Usually called the parent company) and all of his songs, published works, use of image and press clippings all of that is assigned ownership to the label to bring in royalties for the artist. So yes, the artist's notability can be used as notability to the record label that signs the performer. Because of this I have added outside notable citations for Donald Brasseur into the "FOF Records"/"Fortress Of Freedom" articles. A record label that has no artists of any notability rarely has any notability itself. By that reasoning I state that the article FOF Records/Fortress Of Freedom articles not be deleted.


By the same reasoning the Article "The Life And Times Of Donald "Boots" Brasseur" now that notability is established, now has outside evidence of notability to keep it from deletion as the TV show has a subject that is notable (I have also thrown it into the "Maurice Ali" article as it can only help). This is not the only evidence to support the articles. I am just addressing the criticism on "no" evidence of notability. A show about a non-notable person would probably be seen as not worthy of mention at Wickipedia but a show on the life of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan particularly if only one of a few - is notable due to the subject and worthy of a article of its own. Donald has been on at least seven TV shows and all the particulars of this show should not be merged to clutter up what will eventually be a very detained listing of his life experience. Expect the show to show up at the Library and Archives database in Canada sooner or later as it has been submitted and the show - by itself - is an important historical work worthy of an article in Wikipedia (particularly with regard to Protestant and Catholic blessing before a major battle which hardly was ever mentioned (if at all) in any Canadian war documentary to date).

With regard to the journalist association article (International Association Of Independent Journalists) out of the 17 journalist associations in its category, only six (which also includes IAIJ) have any citations or references. The larger more important associations have none and have been that way for years. Because notability or deletion tags have not been used in years (plenty of time to notice them) it can be said that in this narrow field of journalist associations, that the lack of notation is an endorsed policy on these associations and as such the IAIJ association should be kept on the site alongside them. Why is this so? Possibly because many journalists are also members of the few journalist associations and thus cannot improve the articles themselves due to COI . So for these associations its a dammed if you do and dammed it you don't situation and that may be the reason for a common lack of referencing.

Similarly for newspapers (regarding the article: The Fortress Newspaper). Unless that paper folded or is sold or sued or gets in some negative incident, other newspapers will not report about them. That is also specific to the industry and again journalists with a paper can not contribute to stories about the paper due to conflict of interests. So unless you are a huge paper with a colorful past you will have few notable citations. Most of the papers on Wikipedia fall into this class, no different from the citations for The Fortress Paper. This seems to be a policy endorsed by Wikipedia over the years by lack of deletion for papers with few citations in this narrow specific area of articles and The Fortress Newspaper article should therefore be allowed to stand alongside the others.

At the very least the articles for deletion here have only been around for a few weeks, were started by editors with no previous experience and as such should be given the opportunity to be allowed to develop over time amongst several different editors. Wikipedia has a scale for article development so this shows articles do not have to be in finished state to be included int the main space of the website. The philosophy of Wikipedia is to be inclusive and not exclusionary and we should be looking for articles to enhance the database and helping them along instead of searching for reasons to delete theme. On the strength of these arguments I once again as that the articles be kept. Sprams ( talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to say this, and others may disagree, but I don't think this is yet enough to establish that Donald Brasseur is notable. The Adrienne Clarkson TV episode you mention is described as "Four Toronto cabbies who hope for show business careers — as a harpist, harmonica layer, punk singer and comic-painter". Assuming he is the harmonica player in question, this actually sounds like evidence for his non-notability. However if the NME is an in-depth report (not just a trivial mention) and if there are other similar reports in other sources, he is possibly notable. I'm not an expert in wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical acts, but WP:BAND is the target to aim for.
If we assume that Donald Brasseur is notable (which based on the evidence so far I do not accept), this does not in itself make his record label notable, or a documentary about him notable. Notability is not inherited. Nor is it sensible to add references to a British magazine article about a musician in the 1950s to attempt to establish notability for a Canadian corporation registered fifty years later.
Your remarks about other articles in the "journalism association" field having no references, and that this "is an endorsed policy on these associations" are addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Basically, if you feel those other articles aren't notable, and you can't find evidence of notability after a good faith search you are quite entitled to nominate them for deletion, just like any other editor. In any case, they are irrelevant to this discussion about these articles.
Thparkth ( talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: Thank you for your reply. As you can see we have our differences but Wikipedia has very elastic policies by design. Sometimes they need to be tested. And sometimes, my dear friend, it helps to step back and realize what this whole argument represents as this is not a competition, this is not what "you" think, but a consensus among a group. I am quite happy to defer to others on your nominations for deletion. I will tell you that I will not be nominating other articles of like citation because you have nominated these. I like to think of myself as a builder and creator and not a destroyer. I thank everyone for their contributions in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprams ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues

Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created by a newcomer from text cut & pasted from Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, without discussion. Emmanuelm ( talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment from the creator This article is not a fork. I created it by splitting a big article per wikipedia:Summary style, but the split in the original article was reverted, thus creating an illusion of fork. Yceren Loq ( talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Syntax Records

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

No notability no sources. Two of the three Emcee links are false positives. No other notable acts signed, no notability. Previously deleted via AFD in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 02:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Marcus Williamson

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

A writer which apparently writes obituaries for several newspapers. There aren't many Google links, most hits for "Marcus Williamson" refer to an IT consultant which is likely a different person. Travelbird ( talk) 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree the odds are that it is covering two people, and our inability to be sure just highlights how the sources are very poor quality when it comes to supporting a biography. It is possible that if we could prove all the articles about various privacy / banking / etc issues were the one person it might achieve notability, but there's just no evidence. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Mendel Sachs

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

The article only contains around three sentences of biographical material, and it's not clear whether Mendel Sachs is notable enough. If he is, then the biography needs to be lengthened and well-sourced.

The main issue of this article is that it makes very large claims in regards to theoretical physics. The references are only to books written by Mendel Sachs himself. In the first paragraph it is claimed that Sachs has finished Einstein's unified field theory. It is not clear as to what Einstein's unified field theory even is, and as it stands, the paragraph makes little sense. The only reference to back up this monstrous claim is simply a biography of Albert Einstein.

The only results found when searching Google for Mendel Sachs are his books (such as on sites like Amazon.com) and his own personal website and forums, and these are the only sources that constitute the references given. I haven't been able to find any references to his work by any third-party person, researcher, or organization.

But it doesn't pay to call for deletion at first glance. It would be good to hear other discussions on the validity of the claims given. If indeed the article's contents contain true and certifiable results, then these need to be back up by appropriate references and reviews. As it stands, the article seems to promotes a fringe theory, and should be deleted if kept in its current form. 173.30.27.150 ( talk) 23:57, 2 November 2010

Further support: A sysmposium was held in his honour [31] and a subesequent festschrift published Fragments of Science: Festschrift for Mendel Sachs ed Michael Ram.
also WorldCat reports some of his books being fairly widely held (eg. Einstein versus Bohr : the continuing controversies in physics Mendel Sachs (1988) held by 398 libraries in the US (for all 5 editions).) Some of his books have been subject to reviews ( Msrasnw ( talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
I have modified the article a bit to try to help make it a little more neutral. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
Libraries have fixed distributors that will send them whatever they have on their catalogue. This does not mean much, books that don't have a Wikipedia page are held by many more libraries. A birthday party is not a supporting evidence that the scientific community discusses his theories. Such events are common in every university, and to almost any older staff member, including office staff, and are almost certain to happen when some staff retires. He had a single article accepted on Physics Today which was not well welcomed by his peers. It seems fairly common to see published stuff somewhere in a university magazine for instance, that were considered patently wrong by specialists, as in this case. I fail to understand why such isolated case should be evidence for relevant research practiced in the scientific community. Research is published in scientific journals, not in popular magazines. A sound evidence of his relevance is to show that physicists in the Cosmology/Field Theory/Quantum mechanics community cite him as reference and create work based on his books in the peer-reviewed journals. I could not find any such evidence. 75.69.93.206 ( talk) 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I see the above opinions, my feeling on this one is different. Sachs himself is not a fringer, at least in the sense that he has done quite a bit of mainstream work: WoS shows >50 papers in solid journals. The trouble is that the scientific community has largely not taken up his work. Citation counts are 24, 21, 16, 12, 7, 7, ... (h-index 7) and these papers are all from the early 1970s. In other words, his work has had roughly 4 decades to exert influence, but has mostly been unsuccessful. The article itself is a different matter. The fantastic claim that he "completed Albert Einstein's unified field theory" is patently false. Importantly, the article does not provide a link to Unified field theory, where the lead-in plainly says "There is no accepted unified field theory. It remains an open line of research" and this is indeed the case. Most of the article appears to have been written by SJRubenstein, who may have romantic, if uninformed ideas about physics. I would be surprised if that individual and our subject are the same person. Respectfully, Agricola44 ( talk) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
  • Weak Keep. Amended. Symposium and festshrift help. Perhaps he is more noted generally for his writings than his research. With suitable revisions, article should be keep-able. Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
However, as I wrote above, you may want to consider the fact that such events are common practice to any staff member that retires. About the author of the page: observe that in his contribution history, he/she spent most of his/her time trying to get this name spread out across Wikipedia, even though the professor in question has no paper published in peer-reviewed journals that became standard material in any topic in physics (which I guess is true since I could not find a single evidence of strong robust citation history in peer-reviewed journals of this professor). 75.69.93.206 ( talk) 04:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I'm not a registered user, and I only collaborate sporadically with Wikipedia, so I don't know if my vote counts. But I would like to elaborate to why I think this is irrelevant material for an encyclopedia. The author in question have only one published paper on a peer-reviewed scientific journal: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=ea+Sachs,+Mendel. By his age, a professor is expected to have maybe something around 40 papers. Someone who claims to have completed a robust new field theory of gravity likely would have more than 100, showing his outstanding progress in difficult themes in physics. This is however, not the case. All his material have been self-published in books, and none were accepted by his peers in scientific journals. He did, however, publish unscientific material in magazines just to be criticized, as was pointed out. I don't think that really should mean anything. If everyone who published questionable and patently wrong claims were to have his Wikipedia page, then Wikipedia would have 10,000 more pages per month. His ideas are nowhere discussed in scientific community; if they were, one of his books would have several non-self citations in the SPIRES database. The person in question is free to publish his own views on many topics. However, I don't think from his SPIRES record that he is been read by physicists anywhere. 75.69.93.206 ( talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Some further further-support:(by Msrasnw ( talk) 22:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) with interjections by 129.170.26.159) reply
Article in popular science press about his work: The New Scientist (the UKs most popular science mag.. (??)) 4th Jan 1973 has a couple of columns on some Sach's work (published in Nuovo Cimento the respected Italian peer-reviewed journal ) (It can be found here: [32])
I would not count a short book review in New Scientist as suggestion that the work is relevant. Again, lacks citations in peer-reviewed scientific journals. New Scientist publishes anything that ``looks cool. That is why it is popular magazine, not a place for research. 129.170.26.159 ( talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I think it is a review of some his articles rather than a book review and being in the pop. press makes for notability if not necessarily good science. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
Other articles in peer reviewed journals which have Sachs' name in the title:
  • Edwards, Jack (1975) Lamb Shifts for Hydrogen, using the Sachs elementary interaction theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 13(5) is another article which seems to be directly addressing one of his theories and mentions his name in its title. It is addressing Sachs work in his Sachs, M. (1968).Nuovo Cimento,53A, 561-564 and Sachs, M. (1971b).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,4, 453-476. Sachs, M. (1972a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,5, 35-53. Sachs, M. (1972b).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,5, 161-197.
Right, but no citations since 1975. Just the fact that you need to work really hard to find a single supporting evidence somewhere that was written but never became mainstream science should be seen as supporting evidence for deletion. 129.170.26.159 ( talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Another one dated 2002: On the origin of asymmetric aging in the twin problem: Comments on M. Harada's and M. Sachs's views - by Abiko S PHYSICS ESSAYS, Volume: 15, Issue: 2, Pages: 172-175 Published: JUN 2002 - (I don't think I am working hard!) Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
  • Physics Essays - Volume 4 Number 1 March 1991 Marek Czachor On Sachs’s Approach to the Unification of General Relativity and Electrodynamics.
Nobel prize winning physicist attending the symposium in his honour and published an article in his festschrift: Willis Lamb, the quantum physicist, is mentioned as one of the two Nobel prize winners to attend the Symposium in Sachs honour mentioned above and his paper "Super-Classical Quantum Mechanics" is in the Sachs' festschrift. Msrasnw ( talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
I'm not really sure why would the presence of invited guests in the retirement party be relevant support of anything. In fact, Lamb does not cite the author in question in his papers. This is because in every QFT textbook in QED, the author would never be brought into the discussion about the Lamb shift, because the relevant work was done by others. 129.170.26.159 ( talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Exbii

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

Barely dissuaded myself from nominating for speedy A7 as I don't yet have enough experience in that area. Self-referenced, no signs of notability from a search. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Mechanical digger ( talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Possibly, but A7 also states that claim of importance must be credibly substantiated. The content of this article does nothing to lend credibility to that statement. Of course, erring on the side of caution is perfectly fine. :) -- Kinu t/ c 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • No worries. I've actually switched my !vote to a regular delete, given that a high Alexa rank in India could be considered a claim of importance, albeit a very weak one. -- Kinu t/ c 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Just curious.Doesn't this suit to exist as there is one big category of internet forums exists in Wikipedia.There are more than 200 pages on that category.I think by re-writing the page,it can be preserved. Illegal.person ( talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, I'd note that this article has been subject to a high degree of vandalism in recent days; I somehow ended up with it attaching itself to my watchlist after reverting one spate, yet I simultaneously somehow missed the next spate until just now. Accordingly, I've locked the page from anonymous and new user edits. That said, I'm not seeing a serious or properly sourced claim of notability here, so delete — but watch for continued vandalism in the meantime. Bearcat ( talk) 07:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. I am the author of the eXBii page.
Since its inception, the eXBii page has had two notable references in Bigboards and Alexa. The rankings in big-boards and the traffic statistics shown at Alexa clearly substantiate the claim that it is a very popular desi entertainment board. I started the article, only after reading up on wikipedia's notability guidelines. I think Alexa and Bigboards are most definitely regarded to be notable in that regard? Please feel free to correct if i am wrong here.
Also, with regard to the article projecting a biased view i would appreciate it if someone could take the trouble to point out any statements that might suggest a possible bias. While i have done my best to keep it unbiased, it is quite possible that there might have been an oversight in this regard.
Siddhesh ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It states that the articles must conform to reliable sources. Alexa is the most notable source of information for all web forums and a subsidiary of amazon.com as well. The wiki page on alexa pretty much confirms what i just said about it. Siddhesh ( talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Articles must indeed conform to reliable sources, but on what basis is Exbii notable? Your answer above refers to Alexa as a notable source, but I am asking about Exbii as a notable subject. Mechanical digger ( talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Like stated earlier by Magog, Alexa ranks Exbii at #76 in its India specific rankings, which in itself is notable. Furthermore, it ranks high in most Asian countries as indicated by their country-wise stat. Also, a global wide ranking of 706 is very notable for a desi entertainment forum thus conforming to the stated lines regarding its popularity. Siddhesh ( talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Which part of WP:ORG, WP:GNG and WP:WEB does an Alexa ranking qualify an article as notable for inclusion? Please quote the relevant part. Mechanical digger ( talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: let's not beat around the bush anymore and simply state it: without other sourcing, an Alexa ranking by itself is generally not accepted as a prima facie indicator of notability. See WP:ALEXA. -- Kinu t/ c 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think these kind of site's doesn't appear on public news papers or magazine in India,as it contains an adult section.Porn is still a taboo in India.This one is similar to the recent famous censored site (which has a wiki article). Savitha_bhabhi. This may appear on news and magazine references once Govt initiate some ban. :).So,even if this is one of the top visited site in India,there won't be much references available online. 59.92.223.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC). reply
  • One would think there would be some sort of coverage somewhere, nonetheless. Given that pornography is a taboo topic in India, one would think that there would be a source (perhaps not necessarily from an India-based media outlet) that discusses the notion that a pornographic site has such popularity in the country. Indeed, the Savita Bhabhi article has such sources, including prominent and readily available discussion in Indian media, so the assertion that articles on possibly taboo Indian topics suffer from FUTON bias or non-reporting by WP:RS is a weak one. -- Kinu t/ c 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 01:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I was also referrring to the Savitha Bhabhi article as a reference on how adult related sites are treated in mainstream medias.Savitha Bhabhi was indeed popular among Indian internet crowd.It got prominence only when some organizations complained and asked for censor. Govt. censored it and it came to medias,TVs and other debates.So,the outcome is ,unless Govt. bans or some NGOs or right wing people start opposing something, these kind of sites,even if they are having heavy traffic,will not get any reference anywhere.I've just managed to digg through Indian medias and found some interesting reference here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ways-of-the-Indian-pervert/articleshow/692375.cms. It talks about user names but never refers to such sites.A close inspection will show that these are indeed user names on such popular forums. A quick check on the site shows that they are trying to maintain a balance between smut and regular discussions.They have quite good technical,News,movie review and other sections.Anyway I don't want to post a Keep vote,unless we all have a consensus. Illegal.person ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC). reply
  • The pertinent point here is that a proper source of reference is hard to find in the print media for such websites, however popular they might be because of the category they come under. Whatever references can be dug up will only be those that make a passing / indirect reference to the website. Whether such sources can be considered is an entirely different issue altogether i guess. Siddhesh ( talk) 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

kinu are you a bot ? you guys discussed this for too long... delete it or STFU —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

stop threatening new users , And I would recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Motivations_for_contributing —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Time Rush. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Til I Forget About You

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

Delete. Non-notable single with more coverage on a television episode than the single itself. Fails WP:NSONGS and based on hidden note, redirects will be reverted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This hidden note seen only when editing the article: <!-- Please do not blank or redirect this page. There are sources. If you have a reason to do so, please discuss it on the talk page. --> -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 08:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

List of University of Santo Tomas student organizations

List of University of Santo Tomas student organizations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This type of list is not notable and should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. Its entries have no independent notability either, and I don't see verified content that needs to be preserved, or a possible redirect worth saving. Drmies ( talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

What made you say that the article is not notable. Only a very small part of it is linked outside Wikipedia, so this article cannot be considered as a directory. I think this is very informative. Please give me two weeks to have this article fixed. Thank you. Pampi1010 ( talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is better suited to the school's own website than an encyclopedia, and if left will attract spammy external links, it has a few already. Wikipedia is not your school's student life brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
So how am I going to change the article? Though this article is not as comprehensive, Dartmouth has a similar article - Dartmouth College Greek organizations. Please, give me a couple of weeks to edit this article. Thanks. What if I will remove all the external links? Pampi1010 ( talk) 12:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It's likely not possible to change the article, except by hosting on the school's website or finding other hosting on your own. It isn't comparable to the Dartmouth article, as that is a text article rather than a list and supported by more than a hundred sources. Sometimes what looks like a bad article at first glance can be improved and salvaged by editing, but that isn't the case here as the underlying concept is faulty. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, I should accept the fact that the article will go nowhere. You guys know better. As the main author of the article, its just so sad to see my work get deleted. Maybe in a month or two, I'll just put up an article similar to that of Dartmouth. Thank you. Pampi1010 ( talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Wait.. If an article such as List of youth organizations and Taipei American School student organizations can exist, why can't this article? Pampi1010 ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Waltop International Corp

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, only one brief mention in Google News archives about a shares purchase by another company in 2006. Google search turns up only press releases and discussions on tech support lists. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator can be seen in it's pure spam beginnings, which have now been mostly cleaned up. Even with a lot of re-writing, about 2/3 of the article is devoted to discussing pros and cons of electronic stylus technologies, none of which are unique to this company. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim ( talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • It is useful introduction for introduc the electromagnetic pen technolog.
and thanks the help of "top jim", this page is improving.
Now, it is better then other page for electromagnetic pen technolog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pe2pe2pe2 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Empower Playgrounds

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

Promotional. No refs. The concept of electricity generating playground equipment is novel, and may indeed imply notability if this is unique to this company. But we need some good refs, and the article should be written more about the technology than the company itself. Perhaps a merge is in order if an article about this type of technology exists. The Eskimo ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Does need to be re-worked but a search in Lexis-Nexis Academic turned up 3 citations:
    • Real-world connections; Engineering students show off projects at event Idaho Falls Post Register (Idaho), December 14, 2007 Friday, THE WEST; Pg. C1, 451 words, By KENDRA EVENSEN,
    • Power of play: Y. project helps Ghanian kids spin electricity Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City), June 19, 2008 Thursday, 662 words, Elizabeth Stuart Deseret News
    • Playground power project from Utah shines light in Africa Waterloo Chronicle, January 10, 2010 Sunday, Pg. 01, 397 words

I also remember (but can't find) some recent documentary work on this company (60 Minutes?) that was looking at corruption by one of the suppliers (I think). Anyway, article needs work, but I'm convinced of notability (and likely will get around to foisting the sources on this article but if anyone else wants to do that while I'm dithering, go ahead). -- Quartermaster ( talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think it is a little disingenuous that the "Inc." in the article's title is not part of the title link. Perhaps there is precedence for doing this, but when I came across the article, I thought it was about playgrounds that produce electricity...not a company bio. The Eskimo ( talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Ah, strike that, I was the nom and I should AGF and let others hash it out. The Eskimo ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion, of course, can be held outside of AFD. Courcelles 08:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Emma Jackson (Home and Away)

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

Article fundamentally cannot WP:verify notability due to a lack third-party sources that cover the subject in direct detail. The only sources here are tangentially related, more on topic for the article about Dannii Minogue. The only sourced parts of this article are redundant to that one. Without substantial coverage of this character by third-party sources, this article fails the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think the situation is quite as dire as the nominator believes. When Minogue joined Home and Away in 1989, the show was huge. There will be published coverage of the storylines out there if you look hard enough (mostly offline, I would imagine). Here's a couple to start with: [35] a book about Australian soaps and [36], a website that goes beyond the usual fan site and covers the storyline in some detail. Catfish Jim  & the soapdish 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nominator: I would support a merge if that would help to avoid a "no consensus" closure. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Halema Boland

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

Subject appears to be non-notable in the general sense, and as an entertainer. Bringing here in case I missed some sourcing somewhere. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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) 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Synical

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

Unverified, advert-filled BLP, created by the band and with no sources to back it up. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This page was not created by the band but rather fans from europe and united states. All names mentioned in this article are real and will attest to the validity of the information listed. There are NO ADVERTISEMENTS OF ANY Kind in this article. Furthermore, the entire wikipage is very precise and to the point. No other complaints have been made except the Poweruser named Chase me ladies I'm the calvary. I suspect he has other motives for trying to delete this page. He might be involved with another band named SYNICAL(UK) or ex-members of SYNICAL and is trying to remove this page/article for spiteful, mean, and illegal intentions. Brian Haught <personal information redacted for privacy>. IN OTHER WORDS, the editor Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry IS TRYING TO "GAME THE SYSTEM" AND YES I irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. i agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Realsynical, it is clear that you are trying to own the article and that you have some sort of conflict of interest here with regards to the band or those who support it. Please stop with the personal attacks or you may find yourself restricted from editing for disruption. Regards, – MuZemike 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply
re the coi, Realsynical claims to be brian haught when providing an image [38] duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 00:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Gherome Ejercito

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

Apparently non-notable Phillipino basketball player, no awards or honors, no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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) 00:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination has been withdrawn and there is nobody advocating delete. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Manu Herbstein

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

I started to reference this, but I'm finding only passing mention--his book has won an award, but he appears to not have significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

SING (My Chemical Romance song)

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

No references to it whatsoever, the previous single has also been deleted until it charts. Wasn't sure if it would fall under speedy deletion so i thought to put it here. Grey Matter 23:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I changed my mind, keep it. -- FlyAjiraAirways ( talk) 06:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

It's going to be released as a single in a few weeks, why delete the page just to rebuild it? Mark it as a stub for now. 75.189.144.219 ( talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as unsourced and failing WP:NSONG. The creator of this article has a long history of making song articles that end up failiing notability guidelines and end up being deleted or redirected - eo ( talk) 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
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) 00:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gary Powell. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The Invasion Of...

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

Non notable band, also I think notability is not inherited in this case. Mattg82 ( talk) 00:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Website Baker

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

Apparently non-notable CMS system, article is referenced by associated web pages. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CLOSE. Invalid nomination, nominator makes no argument about whether the article should be deleted. Please discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. JIP | Talk 08:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

HMS Bonaventure (31)

HMS Bonaventure (31) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ja:ボナヴェンチャー (軽巡洋艦) is translation from HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007. A Japanese Wikipedian insists that the article HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007 section History, 1st paragraph is almost duplicate from the M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia, ISBN  1-55750-141-6, p.114. Can you judge his opinion is correct or not? And is this copyvio or not? -- Freetrashbox ( talk) 01:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ http://www.envoyservices.com/pressr/GuardianOnlineRetailPaymentTechnologyFull.pdf.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_3&oldid=1142640087"