Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 14

< 13 July	15 July >

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seahorse (JavaScript library)

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

Non-notable software product. Proposed deletion denied by article's author (who appears also to be the software's author) with no edit summary or other discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ——Korath (Talk) 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Initial release: July 1, 2010... come back when the software is actually being used. It's highly unlikely that someone, in just two weeks, has noticed your project, downloaded it, studied the tutorial and has actually used the library in some web project. Even so, we require reliable sources to establish notability, which are lacking too. Wikipedia is not a place to promote new software. - Simeon (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there anything that can be said about the history of the proprietary software prior to being open sourced? (source). Is/was it used by big companies back then? If sources with significant coverage regarding that can be found, the software could be notable. - Simeon (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only if there is any evidence that the software was actually widely used prior to being taken to open source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted by those looking into this topic that there are at least three separate projects at SourceForge going by the name of SeaHorse:

The subject of this article is the project located at http://seahorsejs.sourceforge.net/
There is a second JavaScript add-on library also using the name SeaHorse at http://jseahorse.sourceforge.net/
There is a third SeaHorse project at http://seahorse.sourceforge.net/ that describes itself as a "Gnome front end for GnuPG".

This profusion of SeaHorses is likely to cause a great deal of confusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of these, the third one has an article on Wikipedia: Seahorse (software). - Simeon (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure that one deserves an article either -- it is unreferenced and does not show any particular signs of notability either. But that's a problem for a different AFD. (See WP:OSE). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:47, 19 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Siegel

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

per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC No secondary sources at all. Active for four years with no notable contribution. Self promotion probably. Muhandes (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revert~~Delete to this version of the article which is about a different Mark Siegel (illustrator) which was overwritten by User:Marksiegelmusic and User:MediaMGMT. There is a clear conflict of interest, and the material is a copy of his web site's biography (see [1] and then play hunt the wumpus to navigate to his bio) making this problematic from a copyright standpoint. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I should have been more observant. WP:SNOW? --Muhandes (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got clued into it by the talk page where there was an allusion to the "other Mark Siegel". I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Mark_Siegel asking about how to deal with the article history. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that refers to a third Mark Siegel, co-writer of Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West (with Benazir Bhutto).--Muhandes (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ha! That means I caught this through sheer dumb luck! If it weren't for the note in the talk page, I doubt I would have delved into the article history! -- Whpq (talk)

Comment History split and article disambiguated - the first Mark Siegel is now at Mark Siegel (illustrator). There's probably a case to make that if the Mark Siegel subject to this AfD is deleted, the illustrator can move back to the present article space, but seeing how the article hijack has been attempted multiple times, I'd suggest that Mark Siegel is turned into a redirect instead. Also note that I'll subject the musician's article to a copyvio cleanup in a couple of minutes. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose now that the other Mark Siegel was restored, this AfD can continue. The original reasons for deletion still stand. --Muhandes (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've changed to "delete" as the split of teh article now means that we do not need to revert to keep the original material for the other Mark Siegel. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Seems like self-promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable BLP with no secondary sources, self-promotion. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 21 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney's health

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

Delete. Fork from Dick Cheney with nothing more than an excess amount of detail. Just because all of this was reported in the news doesn't mean it merit's an article (i.e., WP:NOTNEWS. Cheney's health should be summarized in the main article, and nothing more. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is already discussed in some detail in Dick Cheney. You could make a case for Franklin D. Roosevelt's health and how it affected his political career, but a VP? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this material is worth keeping then it belongs in Dick Cheney. There is no good reason for segregating it into a separate article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a merge vote to me unless the material is garbage. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources clearly show how notable this issue was, and remains. The time periods of sources shows it was not just a one-shot in the news. He's had several heart attacks over decades. He was VP for eight years. I am a bit concerned about the reliability of sources - IMHO, Fox News is not reliable - but there seems to be enough good sources to make a potentially good article. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work but serves a purpose The title sounds like a joke but could be worse if entitled "Dick Cheney, just back from a heart attack". Most old politicians get sick but this man has been the butt of jokes for years and also the source of much discussion. The article seems like a keep as long as it is a sub-article written in good faith with no OR and no smearing and with references. President Roosevelt is also a candidate for an article. President Nixon is not as he was not too sick. Cheney's new heart pump is a trivial bit of news (not trivial for his health, a heart pump is a very serious set back) but could be a part of a sub article. There are sub-articles about other major peripheral topics, like the presidential campaign, Bagram Air Base bombing when he was there, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - any relevant details should be summarized in Dick Cheney. It's not like his health problems are notably unusual for an elderly person, and they aren't affecting the United States government in any way, since he's a former leader, and a VP at that. First Light (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shows originality. Someone could do a similar article on JFK or FDR, who had serious health problems too. As you know, Cheney's health is often in the news.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not news, and to the extent this is encyclopedic, it belongs in the main article on Cheney. Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much information for the Dick Cheney article. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trying to make it clear instead of a long explanation. Sorry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet requirements for Notability in Wikipedia. Has not received attention from the world at large, does not have enduring notability. See also: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Infinitjest (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It meets all the GNG bullet points. It has received attention from non-US sources. Just search the BBC. MVOO (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary detail overkill! Agree with Ohnoitsjamie. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' prose (not the list) from "Health", "Heart Attack History" and maybe the "Back problems" to Dick Cheney. Parse those sections as necessary to avoid undue weight within the Cheney article. The rest is trivial (e.g., high cholesterol) or irrelevant to Cheney (e.g., Vice-President succession, which doesn't even mention Cheney, and for good reason, since he wasn't replaced due to health reasons) or just irrelevant (e.g., his health was the butt of comedian jokes? No different than any politician). Rlendog (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After consultation, the AFD will continue. Hopefully a consensus can be achieved.RN 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork about a living person. We do not need articles about the health problems of various individuals, and this needs to be nipped in the bud lest it become a trend. Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork. Without wishing to disrespect the editors who have put their time into it, half the article is basically a copy of the content at Dick Cheney#Health problems and the other half is is padding and unnecessary detail on the conditions he suffers from. None of his health problems are notable in their own right and, if merged to Cheney's biography, would be seriously undue weight. I think it speaks volumes that not other POTUS or VPOTUS has an article dedicated to their health and there are several, FDR springs immediately to mind, whose health was arguably far more notable than Cheney's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge if it's felt that some of the unique content is worth retaining. Not really worthy of a separate article under WP:CFORK as most of it's duplication and the remainder appears to be non-notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be no reason to have a Joe Biden's Health article because it is not an issue. However, there is continual coverage on Dick Cheney's health. It meets WP:GNG because it there is significant coverage year after year, the coverage is reliable, the sources are ironclad like CNN, it is independent of the coverage (the sources of his heart attack is not dickcheney.com). Just because the article is not perfectly written does not mean it gets deleted. Otherwise 70% of Wikipedia gets deleted. Also hating Cheney and wanting him dead or deleted does not mean that the article is deleted. MVOO (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HJ Mitchell and Ohnoitsjamie. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs to be a part of Dick Cheney not a forked page. If theres anything of value merge it and delete. — raeky T 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more a need for this article than there was for Michele Obama's arms. Whatever needs to be said can be said in the Dick Cheney article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on timing of this matter This was originally closed as no consensus. Then the admin had off-wiki consultation (he admits to consultation) and a flood of delete votes accompanied his re-opening of it. Two people have claimed re-opening is permitted but none have pointed the policy allowing it after I asked. Further nobody has refuted the fact that the article meets all bullet points of WP:GNG. AFD is not a vote according to the rules. GNG prevails. MVOO (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary fork. Merge anything notable back to Dick Cheney if not already covered there. Begoon^talk 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food and water is necessary, nothing more. All sub-articles are forks, if you are cynical. MVOO (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a news aggregator. As First Light points out, health problems after retiring are not relevant. To justify this separate article you would need good secondary sources explaining how Cheney's health is such an important issue. And by "good" I mean books or good review articles in journals. It's bad to base an article completely on sparse newspaper articles that are unrelated to each other, without secondary sources that link them together. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 22 July 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 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessey (Band)

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

Written from a non-neutral POV and unreferenced. Could not find third party sources to establish notability. Piano tech 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish WP:BAND notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In accordance with the nomination. The articles subject fails at notability. My76 Strat 03:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Note thst the article's sole contributor's page, User:Hennessey (Denton Band), a is a copy of this article minus some information and appears to exist solely to promote the band. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 16 July 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 nomination withdrawn. The rules are indeed badly written on this, but the nominator's word is enough to withdraw. Thanks for deciding to take care of the work yourself, Muhandes. Let me know if you get hit by a meteorite or some other obstacle comes up. --Kizor 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrogames

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

None of these is notable in itself. Muhandes (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirect to Retrogaming. --Muhandes (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, I'm going to do some cleanup, move relevant information to Retrogaming, and redirect. (I couldn't find anything in the guidelines, anything else I need to do to withdraw beside this message?) --Muhandes (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to retrogaming. Muhandes, you may wish to withdraw your deletion nomination and just do the redirect yourself. --erachima talk 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And add {{Cleanup}}. It needs editing, not deleting. patsw (talk) 23:56, 14 July 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 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-packaging

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

Unreferenced and non-notable. neologism. Google suggests the term is used in various contexts, but none as defined in this article.

Possible coatrack for the company that coined the term.

Author contested PROD with the rationale "the proposal of deletion is not clear at all of me; eStoreMedia is running consumer research regarding eCommerce under the UE grant; all is published at Opisyproduktow.pl; hundreds stores participat" I42 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of references have been added to the article. They are in Polish, though, and I cannot read them.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone needs to judge if the entry is "OK", I suggest using google translate to read the articles in Polish. --Bartezk —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - obvious promo spam. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sales-oriented patent nonsense --- e-packaging stands for electronic packaging, i.e. product’s picture, text description and any other media that e-store uses to describe products for e-shoppers. e-packaging is essential for on-line retail in supporting marketing role of the real packaging --- and a non-notable neologism --- The term was introduced in 2009 by founders of Warsaw (Poland) based company eStoreMedia.com. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable and spam. Visor (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:09, 18 July 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulayman Reis (pirate)

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

This is problematic. The article is based on the Dutch version, which is entirely unreferenced. It has two sources--both to geocities websites and both dead links. There's something in the "further reading" section--one inaccessible book and one personal genealogical site, which only mentions our pirate. I can find nothing in Google News or Google Books for any of the names, not even for the names as they have them in the Dutch article. In short, I don't buy it. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There be enough ghits to convince me he is a real, notable pirate. He gets his own chapter in this odd book titled 1620 Deaths:... and is part of a recent exhibit at the Westfries Museum.Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you provide is to the listing on Amazon of a cheap print-off of a non-copyrighted text whose authority I cannot verify--and I doubt that you did. What if the chapter says that he never existed? And the mention on the website from the Westfries Museum, in reference to an article from the Noordhollands Dagblad, I have some serious doubts about the reliability of that second-hand transmission. Do none of you find it funny that such a great story is NEVER written down in anything that seems even remotely reliable? Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. You're suggesting somebody decided to write a whole chapter about somebody who doesn't exist and didn't die in 1620??? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. That book appears to be a Wikipedia mirror simply taking everything from our 1620 deaths category. Compare the excerpt shown by Amazon with our article on Al-Mansur al-Qasim. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work, no doubt, but you get hits searching for his original name and his name post-conversion. Strange, yes, but marginally notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't find them. Please show me where I went wrong--or better yet, add those sources (the ones that pass muster with WP:RS) to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per user:Clarityfiend. This is not a hoax, though I agree it may seem so. I added a source, http://zeerovery.nl/history/veenboer.htm , assuring me that he existed. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's about as unreliable as it gets: someone's version on a personal webpage of what they say a book says. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate the efforts of these editors to keep the article. But photograph of one newspaper article about an exposition, a personal website, and the Amazon listing of a reprint of a (supposed!) book containing (supposedly!) a chapter on our subject, that's just not enough. I hope some seasoned tars will come by and assess this matter. And for the sake of disclosure: if the guy existed, he'd be from my hometown, and I have no personal interest in removing this man--but I'll do whate'er I can to keep the Wikiwaters safe from the piracy of non-notability. Arr! Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTKNOWIT, especially the part saying "People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable.". The fact he's from your town and you don't know him doesn't mean he 's not notable. You could visit your hometown library (where there's information about the town & its people) and maybe you'll be amazed at the number of notable historical people born there! :) Maashatra11 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I never said that I didn't know him. But really, I was not around in 1620. Clarity, I've been to the museum; this is not the kind of question I would ask them, but thanks for the suggestion! Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Did you know him before you read the article ? Maashatra11 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the plus side, there was such an exhibit at the museum. On the other hand, the page doesn't mention Reis. Somebody who speaks the language (hint hint) should contact the museum. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Drmies can help with the language ... :) Maashatra11 (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has five pages of coverage in this book and varying amounts in these. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Bridger, that's not fair. How in the hell did you find that? I thought I had tried all the spelling variants in the world. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, "varying amounts" indeed. There's a few useful things in there--and I think that for the Dutch wiki citing Jaap ter Haar would be quite a step up; for us, not so much. I'm still puzzled that the Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe seem to have gotten more press than this guy. OK: Phil, you've been around the block; can you close this as withdrawn? (or are there any admins in the house?) To all the contributors above: thank you for your help, but please don't be putting personal websites and such in the article; I'll add what Phil has found and what I can dig up. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The original sources are available at the Internet Archive (web.archive.org) : here and here. The Wayback Machine is to rotten links what a hougan is to zombies. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:27, 17 July 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 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Two Idiots

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

I'm not able to find any information at all on this supposed future film. (Example searches: [2] [3]) I suspect it's a hoax but wondering if any other editors have any success at finding sources to verify the article's content. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Complete and utter hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator, sounds like hoax. PamelaBMX 23:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources support it's existence. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently unverifiable. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and per nom and basically every argument put so far. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no proof that the subject of this article is real. Cliff smith ^talk 23:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The single reference cited is for another subject, the article is rife with inaccuracies & wrongly-spelled words. No other references to this supposed movie exists anywhere else online. Infobox credits two people as director, article credits one. "Javier Bonilla" apparently does not exist in any film-director databases consulted. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 17 July 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.

Sara Kiesler

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure.^walk victor falk^talk 23:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Primarily unsourced BLP. Won award, which as far as I can tell, isn't that significant. Some scientific work, but I see no reason why she passes WP:SCHOLAR, and there just isn't enough there for GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SIGCHI's CHI Academy award is evidence that she her research has had a significant impact in her field as the award is for "individuals who have made substantial contributions to the field of human-computer interaction. These are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts have shaped the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation in human-computer interaction." as stated at their web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Election to CHI Academy, over 100 publications with several articles having over 1000 citations should suggest she's a hugely-influential scholar in human computer interaction. Classic case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep several papers with over 1000 cites passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I note that the nominator of this AfD is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator appears to have intended to refer to WP:PROF, not WP:SCHOLAR (which is something else), but seems not to have read it. She passes WP:PROF #1 (academic impact as measured by citations) by a far more clear-cut margin than most AfDs, and probably passes #2 (significant awards), but I imagine one could still argue that those criteria are somewhat subjective. And there's a possible pass of #8, as editor of Human-Robot Interaction, but maybe that's too new a journal to count. Even if one doesn't count all that, she clearly and obviously passes WP:PROF #3 (has a named chair at a major research institution). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Among the 100 most influential scholars in computer science, as measured by the h-index of citation impact. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html. An h-index of 53 means she has at least 53 paper with at least 53 citations. Her book with Sproull called Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organizationwas highly influential, defining the direction of research on computer-mediated communication for years to come. Google Scholar shows it having over 2,000 citations. She clearly passes WP:PROF #1 (academic impact as measured by citations) I should mention my conflict of interest on this vote, since I've published with her and teach in her department. Robertekraut (talk) 03:37, 17 July 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 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Hall-Mauro

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

Other than having published books, subject is not notable. Nor is content verifiable. I have not been able to find secondary sources independent of the subject of romance novel authors. imars (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not seem to pass our notability guidelines, and an OTRS request has been received at VRTS ticket # 2010071410039508. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content from the article was removed leaving very little including the removal of the list of books. I've reverted so that editors reviewing this AFD have some info to go on. I checked each of the books. All but The Darkest Hour is published via PublishAmerica, a self-pubplishing outfit. The Darkest Hour is published through "Dark Angel Publications" according to Amazon, but there appears to be more than one such publishing company although none of them are significant publishers. One is hosted on Angelfire, and the other has only a Facebook page as far as I can ascertain. None of these books have any reviews or critical commentary in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 16 July 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 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elika Abdolrazaghi

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

Delete. Contested prod which should not have ever been. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP. So depressing that this was created in 2008. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only film this article claims she was in doesn't even have an article. Old Al (Talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. cab (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable film (with reviews in major newspapers e.g. [4]) regardless of the fact that it lacks a Wikipedia article, and this actress' role in it and other films is verifiable --- but there is no coverage actually about her even in Persian, just mentions in lists of names: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete In using search parameters above, I find one article that sources her existance and a role in a Persian TV movie Like a Dream.ISNA: Google translate She fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT.Farhikht (talk) 17:05, 17 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4Front

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, several albums released but none have charted or were released on a major or well-known indy label. Indeed, Spec Records (see:http://www.joebergamini.com/specrecords/catalog.html#RWG) is run by a band member. Disputed prod. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one clicks the contact spec records the email is "[email protected]" -- I think that makes it pretty clear its run by Bergamini. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references don't seem to show significant non trivial coverage. Furthermore, While the band contains one member notable as a member of another band, WP:MUSIC requires two members notable as members of another band for a band to be considered notable. Lastly, notability is not inherited, so the presence of one notable member is insufficient to keep the article. Perhaps this content could be merged to Joe Bergamini. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has always seemed to me to have some circular notability issues (4front is notable because of Joe Bergamini, who is notable because of his involvement in 4front, etc). Marginal at best even with good sources, which don't seem to exist. Tim Pierce (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article indicated that Joe Bergamini was notable ~~as a member of another band as well~~, not just as a member of 4front. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have played with the notable band Happy the Man; but only on one record and when they reformed in 2005. I'm not sure if that makes him notable as a musician. However; this project clearly isnt.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC, his work with Happy the Man would be insufficient to establish notability. However, he has performed in some notable Broadway shows, and so would meet criterion 10, that they have performed music for a notable work of media. RadManCF ☢ open frequency

The sources for Bergamini's other work are pretty poor -- his Broadway resume is taken entirely from a short website bio that sounds like it was written by him. I do not think we have reliable sources that confirm his notability outside of Happy the Man. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i believe this is an inappropriate venue for discussing the notability of Joe Bergamini. I also wonder about this series of nominations since the nominators has been trying to remove wholesale (some referenced, some not) material from some of these pages, such as here: [5]. Tduk (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Joe Bergamini is the basis for claiming 4Front's notability. It's crucial to this discussion. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree but discussing it here is not the correct procedure. we have to assume he IS notable unless his article gets deleted. discussing his notability here does not involve the right people - those watching his article. we have to assume he is notable unless his article is proven otherwise at his article. if you believe he is not, go AfD that article. to argue his notability here is a sneaky way to get around wiki policies, imho. Tduk (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tduk: I agree that we should assume the notability of Mr. Bergamini. @Tim Pierce: IMO, the notability of Mr. Bergamini is insufficient to establish the notability of 4front, as I explained in my !vote. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They seem well known enough. maybe someone can find better sources. i'm not sure about the record label being run by a band member (it looks just like a standard band order form to me, doesn't necessarily prove anything) - but it seems that one of their albums has been on several labels. Also they seem to pass by having 2 notable members (point 6)Tduk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one clicks the contact spec records the email is "[email protected]" -- I think that makes it pretty clear its run by Bergamini. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(they also seem to pass WP:MUSIC 6 by having two notable members - jimmy wilgus and joe bergamini) Tduk (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm -- 4Front is notable because of Wilgus and Wilgus is notable because of 4Front -- that seems rather circular reasoning imo. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wilgus's notability is confirmed only by his involvement in 4Front, and I see that is also under dispute. The very fact that it seems to be so difficult to find reliable sources to establish notability for all these people seems meaningful. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, but then we need to follow correct wikipedia procedure as i stated above, and as RadManCF agreed with me - until wilgus' article is actually deleted, we have to assume he is notable. Tduk (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tduk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to me to be mere wikilawyering -- why not actually offer an argument for notability on this page or Wilgus' for that matter? (I assume that you now no longer deny that Specrecords is run by a band member). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i do not appreciate accusations of saying we should follow policy (in ways that others agree with on here) being wikilawyering. i do not often contribute to wikipedia as i do not have the time to do so - this page is on my watchlist because i like to keep informed of things. maybe if you had notified any of the creator of this page, or any of the people who frequently edited it, you would have people actually knowledgeable enough to improve the page, instead of trying to sneakily remove cited information, no doubt in preparation to nominate pages for deletion, like you did here[6]. but i don't have the time to argue this anymore; whatever happens, will happen. Tduk (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If the drummer is so notable, then this band can be mentioned in his article as a side project. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:06, 21 July 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 as previously, as nothing seems to have changed since the last discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Angels Whisper Your Name

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

Self-released demo with no significant coverage —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 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 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key Objects Library

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

I'm not interested in programming myself, and this article is quite technical, but I can't see any evidence that this "library" meets WP:GNG. I rejected an A7 CSD, because it was ineligible. Claritas § 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability was not demonstrated. --Muhandes (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A code library with no evidence of significance outside of programming communities, and for that matter no evidence of significance within them either. Oddly written in sentence fragments, making it somewhat hard to figure out what the article wants to say: Theme of writing a minimal (in size) applications on Delphi disclosed widely enough. Various solutions of this problem, such as a complete rejection of the use of any library and writing programs in API, and the use of other visual libraries, other than VCL (ACL, KOL). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no significant coverage I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 18 July 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 as evidence of notability was not provided in the discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Schmautz

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

The German version of this article was deleted already. It is perfectly obvious that this is a vanity article without any encyclopaedic relevance whatsoever. Tiritomba (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several External links, suggesting the page could have a future. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a strong keep argument at all. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No particular claim of notability, and I could not find any secondary sources on him. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He ~~was elected to the European Parliament, and he~~ has headed an organization that has received some reportage elsewhere. I did find a couple of tiny snippets on Google Books: what appears to be a very short thing by him titled "Mit dem Spaltpilz soll der zweite Frühling kommen" appears in a 1981 collection of views (and is also listed here); unless there are 2 political writers named Harald Schmautz, something by him is a reading excerpt in a textbook for students of German; and some statement of political outrage by him concerning the need to accept nature's boundaries was published in the magazine of the European Commission. So, not completely without independently published and outside sources. But very little material to work with; possibly someone with more access to or knowledge of German-language newspaper archives can find more. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Politician. MEPs are intrinsically notable: 1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He should be better known in Germany and the Germans deleted his entry in 2008 already. The overwhelming majority of his mentionings are either self-referential or complimentary. Yngvadottir, where did you find the information that he is, or used to be, an MEP? His own website http://haraldatwork.tripod.com/index_en.html doesn't mention it. (The man is so irrelevant that he has a Tripod-page as his professional web presence.) Google Book Search delivers one hit for "Harald Schmautz", but somehow the result is not about him. It seems that all the external sources about him which are NOT self-referential or complimentary, are letters to the editor by him or he is mentioned as the contact for some monarchist organization. The only genuine reference is 29 yars old. -- Skowronek The Lark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I couldn't find the MEP ref; I probably failed to notice an ellipsis in a Google result, so I am striking that. I did notice that the trail is cold, but notability doesn't have an expiration date; if he made a big enough splash a decade or two ago it wouldn't matter if the focus has moved off him. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a BLP, the lack of verifiable information requires deletion. If sources are provided at a later date, the article can be recreated. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and per Skowronek The Lark. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:09, 21 July 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 delete. No attempt made to provide evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Ishikawa

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

Delete. Contested prod. No notability. No sources. No article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News shows only trivial mentions, no other evidence of major awards or other evidence of notability. cab (talk) 01:26, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Anguiano

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

Delete. Minor actor with no apparent notability. There doesn't seem to be any significant and non-trivial coverage from multiple (and reliable) third party outlets either, unsurprisingly. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Short career. No outstanding roles. No coverage. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR, and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 17 July 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 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento Wildfire

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

This article is about a National Indoor Football League team that the article claims was scheduled to begin play in 2007. There is no update in the article to indicate it ever did start play. In fact, I cannot find any news articles about the team at all through google news. A web search is turns up very little as well. This item calls them "phantom franchise". I considered redirecting to the National Indoor Football League but that articel makes no mention of them at all. Whpq (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "lazy" WP:CRYSTAL (meaning it should have been deleted years ago becaue the team never actually formed but the article managed to somehow stick around...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent team. Also, from the viewpoint of a Californian, the most insensitive team name I have heard of in years. Wildfires are not a laughing matter out here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:47, 19 July 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 deleted as WP:G12. The entire content was lifted from the school website and there is no clean version to revert to. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Droopnath Ramphul State College

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

Clearly an ad. Not sure if cleanup is possible. Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be about a secondary school. It also appears to have been copied from the school's website here. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. In deference to the open AfD, I won't tag it for G12 speedy at this time. Deor (talk) 12:39, 15 July 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 because of spurious nomination, trolling; nomination by what is likely a previously blocked account — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet paper orientation

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

This looks like some sort of a joke. As far as I can tell, the masses and masses of citations and references are a complete smokescreen. Most of the article doesn't discuss toilet paper orientation at all but tangentially related topics. Xjobcon (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic is notable and your claims that it is a joke and references are faulty seem false. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oddly, a somewhat random sampling of the voluminous cites seems to verify that people really like to write about this topic. I note that the article was a 'Do You Know' selection July 12. Notable and referenced and, need I say, balanced. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's funny, but we have no rule against that. The topic really exists and the references look genuine (I haven't checked them, so I'm just judging by the names, etc.). The article is about the topic. I don't know what the last sentence of the nomination is talking about. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first glance I thought this must be a joke too - but no! I've checked a few of the references, and they look fine - there really do seem to be reliable sources out there attesting to the notability of the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the article, "What surprises some observers, including advice columnist Ann Landers, is the extent to which people hold strong opinions on such a trivial topic." One could say that it shouldn't be notable, shouldn't be written about, shouldn't be commented on, shouldn't be worried about-- and yet it is. I think that the only real objection is the title, "Toilet paper orientation", but there's no reason that people have to be deadly serious in their writing style. When it comes to toilet paper, people clearly give a... never mind. Mandsford 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the imagery is superfluous though and should probably be.... flushed. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clearly has notability and just as clearly isn't a joke, saying all the references and citations are a smokescreen ignores that it is those which confer and confirm the former formally. I'm going to assume good faith, and that this isn't just a case of a disgruntled underhanger wanting to wipe away the evidence that the majority of people hang their toilet paper the correct way ;). Anyway, this article may have the appearance of appearing slightly burlesque in its serious treatment of what some seem to consider a trifle, but it is a real and valid subject.Number36 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps discuss whether the tone is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reading through it, it seems more like an article in a news magazine. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well written and research-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real topic, really covered by real sources. That it is light hearted doesn't make it less real. Nominate this one for FA. I smell an April Fools article for next year! --Jayron32 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, this is a great article and is very well sourced. PamelaBMX 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cool "random, albeit notable" fact article. It was featured on the main page! Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator has no prior edits and may be the same banned/blocked user who's been harassing me in edit summaries. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kan-jam

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

Since the game is patented, this article is really just an advertisement for a commercial product Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources demonstrate why this game is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a news search shows plenty of sources. I'm none-the-less a bit suspicious given I'm an ultimate and disc golf player and never heard of it. But pretty clearly over the bar on WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I take that back, I saw it played it once this summer, didn't realize it was the same thing. I think the one I saw was homemade, but... Hobit (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no sources to impart notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the ones you find if you clink on the news search above?Hobit (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant that the article contains no adequate references (and since it is the responsibility of the article's creator, and of those arguing "keep", to ensure that this problem is rectified, I cannot help wondering why you haven't added any of the citations you claim to have located). Anyway, I do not consider such sources as a tangential feature in a student newsletter and a short article in a small local rag to be the "significant coverage" which the notability requirements of this project mandate. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply point out that WP:DEL tells us that the debate is about the topic, not the current state of the article and also it's no wonder people don't source articles since it takes a lot of work and then someone comes along and tries to delete it anyways even if it meets WP:N by calling the references "local rags" or some such (notability is reliable sources, local or otherwise...) . If you want to ignore both WP:DEL and WP:N and argue someone else should be fixing things to a standard that would still cause you to want to delete it, I think the problem isn't mine or the original author's. It meets WP:N and no one has provided a reason why we should ignore WP:N in this case. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and WP:BURDEN doesn't say what you indicate it says. Is this material likely to be challenged? If there is something you find factually questionable, tag it. But I'd ask you do your own research and see if in fact it _is_ documented before you do so. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, at 00:45, 17 July 2010, you claimed to have found "plenty of sources." Almost three days have passed since that point. Please could you explain why you have not done anything to improve the article during those three days? ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for the reasons stated above. Is there some part of it that wasn't clear? Hobit (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see any explanation above, so perhaps you could repeat it more clearly, but I have made an educated guess. Essentially, you (a) admit that the article is not up to scratch; (b) insist that it nevertheless be kept; (c) claim to have the means to improve it; and (d) refuse to improve it. One further question—have you ever heard of integrity? ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm withdrawing from this discussion. In the future, please stay off my talk page unless it is to apologize. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're confirming my hypothesis. Thanks for the clarification. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If you check http://www.kanjam.com, the game is notable and has a very strong presence in Buffalo, NY (where it originated) and is quickly spreading to other places in the northeast). The website explains its origin, details on how to play, and provides links to leagues and other supporter groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.1.97 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC) — 70.181.1.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The cited link is a commercial link for the product.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment sources include [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], brief mention in NYT, [12]. There are also many in-passing references to Kan Jam tournaments and business operations. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why haven't you added any to the article? ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 13:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you missed it, but my reasons are A) I am no more obligated than you to add them (your reading of BURDEN is at best odd, WP:BEFORE certainly applies though...) B) It seems adding them isn't enough in your opinion anyways, so I don't see the point and C) When people insult and try to boss me around I don't tend to do what they want. I thought I was clear about the first two above, the third was implied, but I thought I'd be more plain at this point. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am no more obligated than you to add them – on the contrary, it is you, not me, who insists the article be kept, and it is surely your duty to do what you can to work towards that. When people insult and try to boss me around I don't tend to do what they want – if this is to be taken at face value, it means that you are holding back from adding the sources simply in order to spite me, which (aside from not working!) seems rather POINTy to me... ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hobit's sources. I've added a few, and while the NYT mention is very brief, the coverage in a book and various publications seems enough to put it over the line. In addition it is being mentioned frequently in regard to college activities and in college papers: while those don't confer notability as such, they make me feel that there is some value in an article here, beyond the confines of the GNG - although with coverage in multiple RS's other than the college papers, it seems to meet the GNG anyway. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Hobit's digging has provided enough coverage to just pass the general notability guideline. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ths sources found by Hobit look like enough significant coverage to justify retaining this under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Analytics for Enterprise Business Intelligence

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

At first glance this looks like copy-and-paste advertising, but it's really just an essay about...actually, I'm not sure if it's about a company or what. The second external link also suggests a conflict of interest. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this proves it is a conflict of interest. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OWN says it all. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you have empty pages to fill, but nothing to fill them with, this is the kind of prose you produce: Principles for the Analysis and presentation of data: Principle 1: Show comparisons, contrasts, differences Principle 2: Show Causality, Mechanism, Systematic Structure, Explanation Principle 3: Show multivariate data; that is, show more than 1 or 2 variables Principle 4: Completely integrate words, numbers, images, diagrams Principle 5: Thoroughly describe the evidence Principle 6: Analytical presentations ultimately stand or fall depending on the quality, relevance, and integrity of their content. This would be a how-to article on how to make graphs and charts for presentations, but the author's relentless drive for tautology, to make the simple seem complex, obscures its purpose and defeats any instructional intent. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. Much of this list may violate WP:OR, if the "source" column is based on primary research on the texts. Note that Darkness manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claritas has it right, Wikipedia is not a directory nor a cross-categorizer. TN XMan 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banish into the darkness, per previous reasoning. Though in Wikipedia's case it's more of a banishment into redness... --erachima talk 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Even though my finger prints are all over this, and a number the like lists, I'm really ambivalent to it being retained. Most of these lists are a result of old CfDs the nutshell of which was 1) that the categories required more information to include articles that wound up on the category page and 2) the categories were creating clutter in a number of places. And this does give rise to the concern that this will push the need/desire to correlate these characters in fiction back into categories. Beyond that... lists of examples can be, and often are encyclopedic in nature. These lists tend to push the edge of that since it's an attempt to "not offend by omission" and avoid edit warring of the examples that are included. As for OR, that's a bit of a double edged sword here. Most examples are going to be based on the primary source, there is little way around that, but it should be something explicitly stated in the primary source, not something the reader interprets. - J Greb (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as another party in said CfDs (and also the guy who did a good chunk of the table coding for these lists if I recall correctly), they were preserved as lists primarily as a political move, and under the agreement that they would be revisited if it did not appear there was actually be the potential for an encyclopedic article on the subject. I'm a fan of lists, and agree that they should be given a certain level of lenience when it comes to notability, but the inability to establish the notability of the topic of the list is a pretty damning strike against them. --erachima talk 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is really that it is a cross-categorization of "Fictional characters" and "People who can manipulate darkness or shadow", and this seems to be trivial. The interpretation of "manipulation of darkness and shadow" can be extremely broad - it could extend to switching on/off a light. Claritas § 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that was part of the reason the categories went to CfD - the result of which was to listify the content not outright deletion. Granted thought that was a few years back and consensus can change.

As for "cross-categorization"... that really can wind up a semantics argument. Any list of examples of a given non-standard ability (super strength, controlling plants, controlling light, telepathy, etc) in fiction is going to cross series, publishers, genre, and/or media. - J Greb (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a problem with the topic, and I'm not sure it's really cross-categorization -- are there real people who can manipulate darkness or shadow? Maybe the guy who takes uses the shadow of his hands to "make a bunny", and this is about as fascinating. As with other lists of this type, it's original synthesis and badly done, kind of killing any interest that might have been generated by the title. Mandsford 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- much of the list is original synthesis, and consensus at other AfDs seems to be that this kind of article is inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 01:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. This and other such lists are WP:OR and cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA as they really have no potential for being an encyclopedic coverage of any topic. The crossing of fictional character X ability to manipulate darkess/shadows is trivial, overly broad as such a list is neither finite nor truly definable, and not an appropriate topic for a list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It is a bit of all, previous discussions, OR, NOCONTENT, synthesis, and so forth. Frankly, these lists are pretty useless in their current form. On top of that they hardly contain 1% of the fictional subjects with these abilities, so they might become somewhat unmanageable once they are near-complete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no potential in this pure OR list - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research and many of the entries on those lists don't even have stand-alone articles. —Farix (t | c) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this is a repeat of another similar AFD which has the same kind of topic)... this topic just fundamentally disagrees with Wikipedia and it's not a question of fixing it. Unencyclopedic cross-categorization as per WP:NOTDIR. There is nowhere except Wikipedia where this is covered which makes this WP:OR. I'm not trying to insult anyone's work when I even say this should be a snowball delete and I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that this could be saved by a transwiki. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 18 July 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 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can alter probability

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. It also contains original research, which violates WP:NOR - I can't verify any of the claims concerning the "origin" without using the original texts. Note that Probability manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Even though my finger prints are all over this, and a number the like lists, I'm really ambivalent to it being retained. Most of these lists are a result of old CfDs the nutshell of which was 1) that the categories required more information to include articles that wound up on the category page and 2) the categories were creating clutter in a number of places. And this does give rise to the concern that this will push the need/desire to correlate these characters in fiction back into categories. Beyond that... lists of examples can be, and often are encyclopedic in nature. These lists tend to push the edge of that since it's an attempt to "not offend by omission" and avoid edit warring of the examples that are included. As for OR, that's a bit of a double edged sword here. Most examples are going to be based on the primary source, there is little way around that, but it should be something explicitly stated in the primary source, not something the reader interprets. - J Greb (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really hate all of these types of articles, which do everything except explain why a character is on the list. I suppose that I could click on the blue link to see what's so special about "Amos Fortune", but the only reason I would want to look at a list is to be able to see similarities and differences. It's original synthesis, badly done, with the authors filtering out anything that might be remotely of interest to anyone who might consult it, so I can see other things I can say beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd compare it to creating a list of the fifty American states and the only information about the state would be what time zones it's in, whether it's east or west, whether its flat or mountainous, and whether it's small, medium or large. Yawn. Clearly, people have worked hard on it and might even try to improve it, but for the most part, these are all boring and useless. Mandsford 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It is a bit of all, previous discussions, OR, NOCONTENT, synthesis, and so forth. Frankly, these lists are pretty useless in their current form. On top of that they hardly contain 1% of the fictional subjects with these abilities, so they might become somewhat unmanageable once they are near-complete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think the probability of this being deleted can be altered no matter how big ones superpower is =p. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the others of this ilk, it is purely WP:OR and cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. It isn't part of an encyclopedic topic, and how exactly do you define "alter probability"? The crossing of fictional character X with ability Y is a trivial, non-encycopedic bit of opinion that generally results in an overly broad as such a list is not realistically finite in number, truly definable, nor are they appropriate topic for a list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research and many of the entries on those lists don't even have stand-alone articles. —Farix (t | c) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments at the other AfDs for articles of this sort. Reyk _YO! 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An encyclopedia is not a repository for fanboy minutiae. None of this has the slightest bit of real-world impact or notability. (per the mass AfD at (Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability) Tarc (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ongoing arguments and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. SnottyWong ^gossip 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic just fundamentally disagrees with Wikipedia and it's not a question of fixing it. Unencyclopedic cross-categorization as per WP:NOTDIR. There is nowhere except Wikipedia where this is covered which makes this WP:OR. I'm not trying to insult anyone's work when I even say this should be a snowball delete and I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that this could be saved by a transwiki. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:59, 18 July 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 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. It also contains original research, which violates WP:NOR - the source column seems to be based on primary research into the texts. Note that Technology manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. I don't really know what "technology manipulation" means in this or any context.....presumably if I change the OS on my laptop that's technology manipulation ? Claritas § 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL, per nom and previous AFDs Nakon 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these lists is very good, and even the most vigorous inclusionist wouldn't be able to say much other than "plenty of room for improvement". There was a real lack of vision in deciding what to include in a sortable table-- I can kind of figure out that if it's in Marvel Comics, then it's probably in a comic book, for instance-- and there's not much revealed about anyone on here-- this one's magic, that one's inherent, that one's inherent, that one's inherent. I won't mind if some technology is manipulated to delete this one. Mandsford 21:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Original synthesis for the most part, and consensus seems to be that these kids of articles are not appropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most, if not all, of those lists are just repositories of loosely associated topics based on a trivial cross-categorizations. They are also horrendous train wrecks of original research and many of the entries on those lists don't even have stand-alone articles. —Farix (t | c) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the others of this ilk, it is purely WP:OR and random cross-categorizations that violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. It isn't part of an encyclopedic topic, and what is considered a "manipulation of technology"? The crossing of fictional character X with ability Y is a trivial, non-encycopedic bit of opinion that generally results in an overly broad as such a list is not realistically finite in number, truly definable, nor are they appropriate topic for a list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as the others this is pure OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can add me to the list. I'm using my powers right now. Otherwise delete as WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great big resounding keep from me. No original research that I can see but that's besides the point. A good dollop of OR is just what Wikipedia could do with at the moment. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the stupidest !votes I've ever seen, but I'm not blanking it because it's more silly than disruptive. Claritas § 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, and you are a deletionist but I will be sober in the morning. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drink and wiki. Claritas § 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I wouldn't but somehow I don't think I'll have changed my mind by tomorrow, even with the hangover. I can only hope for your sake that you have. ;) --86.132.227.35 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should state that there is no original research as I just removed a bunch of entries of cyborgs, androids, computer programs, and the like along with individuals who manipulated technology using other technology. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of a list article. Some entries will be removed, some will be added. There will always be greater levels of perfection for which to strive which is pretty much the case with all articles. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the encyclopedia as a whole. Some articles will be added, rubbish ones like this will be removed. Reyk _YO! 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbishness is a point of view. Frankly I fail to see what makes this article so very "rubbish". There many characters in fiction who can manipulate technology. This seems like a noble way of categorising them. Lists are significantly less unruly than categories. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It violates two core policies (WP:V an WP:NOR) as well as the policy of what Wikipedia is not. "noble way of categorising them" is exactly what WP:NOT#DIR is there to prevent. —Farix (t | c) 02:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:Wikipedia is not paper so see what is in place to neutralise WP:DIR. In any case, there are far too many policies around here. Some of them need to go. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, of which this list does not. And I see no way to "neutralise" the WP:NOT#DIR as the list fundamentally violates that policy. —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles shouldn't need a reason to be included but there should be a very good reason for certain articles to be excluded, something more substantial than the destructive urges of certain editors. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having this sort of nonsense in Wikipedia damages the reputation of the site as an encyclopaedia. Claritas § 16:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't be so ordinary. There's nothing nonsensical about having a List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology. If were discussing a List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves then obviously I'd vote for deletion. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An encyclopedia is not a repository for fanboy minutiae. None of this has the slightest bit of real-world impact or notability. (per the mass AfD at (Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability) Tarc (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have real-world impact but nor for that matter does James Bond. It has artistict impact. But frankly I don't know why I'm even defending it, you've obviously made up your minds that you're going to delete the article so why not just haul it to the guillotine and put it out of its misery once and for all. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is precisely what an encyclopedia is. There's always other venues for this sort of thing, check out wikia.com, I'm sure someone has started a superhero wiki by now. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what an encyclopedia is? And what is that? A gas chamber for human knowledge and imagination? I thought encyclopedias were supposed to bring a depth and wealth of interesting information to the general public. Which is why Wikia is vastly superior to Wikipedia. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior? Please, the Wikia is a vast fancruft playground...think of it like the alt.* hierarchy of the Usenet days. That's why this sort of thing is more suitable there rather than here. "depth and wealth of interesting information", sure, but that doesn't mean every scrap of everything that exists. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, superior. If a vast fancruft playground is the only way to achieve a compendium of everything that exists (ergo: ultimate encyclopedia) then perhaps that's what Wikipedia needs to be. You notice that Wikia doesn't bother with those silly, piddling little sources that Wikipedia is so cripplingly dependant on. And you'd be hardpressed to find any nonsense policies like NOR there either. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I think this IP is simply trolling. Notice that he/she has not making any counter-arguments to begin with and just poking other editors just to get a response. That's why I stop responding to it a while back. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit like A Nobody. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling and I have made a good many counter-arguments, most of which have simply been brushed aside. No, I am not poking people for a response, if people find my beliefs controversial then that's their problem. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the ongoing discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. SnottyWong ^express 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody was a good man. I'm sad to see that the Wiki-Mafia have made him disappear for challenging the infallible will of the Deletionists. Wikipedia could use more like him. But hey, who cares about creating when you can destroy? --88.106.175.78 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not actually a comic book fan but it is a vehicle for businesses that probably account for income, in the billions of dollars a year, so it is popular with many fans. That is not the issue at hand. The issue, seeking consensus, is if the article should be deleted or not and reasoning. An article being considered for deletion, stating reasons, should be addressed and views against deletion should present reasoning and counter any accusations. Verbiage that makes no specific reasoning will not be considered one way or the other. I am "not" a "deletion" -ist and don't even like the supposed word. If an article does not provide material per Wikipedia then it is a candidate for deletion. I have read the above entries and some instances simply are not actual. The article, silly or not, or encyclopedic or not, will not actually "damage" Wikipedia. If left standing a person will probably not stop using Wikipedia because of the contents of this article. That is my POV but the arguments presented that I have read, and lack of actual constructive counter arguments, does lead to a justifiable consensus. I have not looked into the listed Wikipedia standards violations, but have to consider other similar deleted articles.

I can not, thinking as broadly (and even liberally) as possible, having 4 children and 8 grandchildren, imagine what good the article serves. I can not, again thinking openly, imagine that even a comic book fan would seek out this particular information. If it was that important it should be included in the relevant articles. With all said, and certainly not biased one way or the other, I have to vote delete with sound reasoning. Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a list and the topics are all bluelinks, so souring really isn't a problem. I can see the OR argument, but I'm curious if anyone has any specific cases they disagree with, otherwise it seems pretty odd to object to something as OR when everyone agrees on each case. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Claritas the definition of the term in this context is "Ability to manipulate technology. Manifested as a special form of electrical/telekinetic manipulation, a special form of "morphing" which allows physical interaction with machines, or even a psychic ability that allows for mental interface with computer data." I'm unclear why you felt it wasn't defined in this context. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - What are the chances to EVER be able to verify that definition for any entry from a third party source? WP:LIST WP:V Active Banana (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well a similar definition (which we can't use word-for-word of course) can be found at [13], or [14] which is shorter but also defines the term. So 100% chance I guess? If the differences between those RSes and this definition offend, feel free to rewrite. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd imagine that some written work on superheroes must have chapters on this sort of material actually - things like superhero powers are a pretty basic point of discussion. I would have voted keep in the other two. And transwiki'ing and fragmenting of information I suspect is the death knell of quality editing so. I suspect this is going to be deleted though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely original research, no way to fix it that i can think of anyway. 71.16.41.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I need some input on the topic of "Lists". I read the remarks from Hobit and later was exploring AfD's and found this:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white nationalist organizations.

Among reasons to keep was, "Keep Templates, lists and categories are all legitimate navigational aids, even though they tend to get out of synch.", and if this is true then what would be the basis for AfD? I don't even like that list, nor do I see an actual need for this one, but if the grounds are legitimate, as a navigational aid, then we are barking up a proverbial AfD tree? Information request; I would like some unbiased reasoning concerning this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it's convincing in that case is because someone said "it duplicates a template" which isn't really a reason to delete. It's not really relevant to this AFD which is for totally different reasons. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 20 July 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. I'll be happy to userfy, just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan training camp

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's no specific camp called "Moroccan training camp" - this article is just about information the US have which suggests that there may be an Al-Qaedia camp somewhere in Morocco. Claritas § 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I started this article and about two dozen articles about other training camps, way back in 2006 nad 2007. On March 29, 2010, I went on record with a proposal that the separate articles about most of the camps should be merged. I went on record as acknowledging that I hadn't found additional references to support separate articles for most of these camps. There are lots of WP:RS for the Al Farouq training camp, Khalden training camp, Derunta training camp, and Tarnak Farms, so they should remain separate articles. Possibly other articles should remain separate. When I drafted the proposal I was hoping there would be a collegial informed debate on all the camps.
The phenomenon that alleged attendance at a suspect training camp was used, in part, to justify continued detention in Guantanamo is well documented. Felter et al, at West Point, noted that of the first 516 allegation memos, 181 justified the continued detention of captives, in part, because of their alleged attendance at a training camp. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". Combating Terrorism Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-30.

This is all fine, but where are you going to merge it to ? Claritas § 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a link to my March 29 proposal. It lists two possible targts for a merge: Afghan training camps or a new article with a name like Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives. 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My problem with a merge is that there's no verifiable information on the camp available. It might not even exist. Claritas § 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "It might not even exist". I suggest that this argument, in general, isn't really relevant when considering whether an article should be kept, deleted, or merged. Our opinions, my opinion, your opinion, on the credibility of WP:RS is irrelevant, according to several of the wikipedia's core policies. Our core policies protect the wikipedia from being over-run by fringe-science kooks, drafting POV articles on "wongo juice". We have articles on fringe sciences, like, for example, phrenology. It shouldn't matter whether or not the individuals who draft those articles on fringe sciences believe phrenology was based on something real. Why? Because the rest of the community should insist that articles on fringe sciences, like phrenology cite WP:RS, and measure up to all the standards we expect of articles. When a fringe science topic is covered in WP:RS, but all the WP:RS coverage dismiss the topic as nonsense, then that is as far as the wikipedia article on the topic should go. If someone claims that "Phrenology today" has a brilliant rebuttal of all those critiques we'd consider whether Phrenology today measured up to our standards, probably decide it did not.
It is not our role to inject our personal opinions into articles. We are supposed to reflect what WP:RS say. Period. For decades continental drift was regarded as a kooky fringe science theory. If the wikipedia had been around, back then, and we applied the wikipedia's core principles, we would have covered continental drift to the extent it had been written about in the WP:RS of the day.
With this camp, and many of the similar camps, we have WP:RS, that assert the existence of these camps, that leave some wikipedia contributors skeptical of their existence. Personally, I too am skeptical of some of their assertions. But my skepticism, your skepticism, should play no role in what gets put into article space. That is NPOV 101. Over the last five years on the order of 100 Guantanamo related articles have been nominated for deletion. Some ended up being deleted. IIRC most survived. In those discussions one perennial complaint used to be that the articles weren't citing enough MSM coverage -- phrased as if that was equivalent to saying they weren't citing WP:RS. That was a mis-citing of WP:RS and WP:VER. We don't insist that every topic we cover can be referenced to MSM coverage. Official government web-pages, official government briefings, official government press-releases, and official government publications are all accepted as WP:RS, as WP:RS to that government's official position. Citing those WP:RS does not imply that the wikipedia is endorsing the credibility of those WP:RS, or any other WP:RS we cite, because, we are not trying to prove things are "true", merely that they are "verifiable". It is completely verifiable that Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan had his continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation he attended the "Moroccan training camp".
I've already acknowledged that the further references I thought I would find to support this camp having a separate article weren't found. But I maintain it is appropriate to have a broader article cover all the known camps, including the ones for which there are not sufficient references for an individual article. Now you get to say, "I have stated my opinion, but I am just a volunteer, doing this in my spare time, I don't really have time to respond to your counter-arguments." I really am interested in trying to understand your objections to a merge.
I will offer a couple of final counter-examples, to which you can respond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We cover lots of topics from theoretical physics, for which a critic might say, that new sub-atomic particle may not even exist. No one believes in the luminiferous ether anymore, so it doesn't really exist, but we have an article on it. Finally, how about Saddam Hussein's vast arsenal of WMD? The Bush administration insisted that Iraq had this vast arsenal of nerve gas, and possibly germ warfare and atomic bombs as well, ready to use, and posing a vast threat to world peace. This theory was widely accepted. The Bush administration continued to maintain it had existed, and just hadn't been located, for years after the invasion. We wouldn't stop covering this arsenal now, just because it didn't exist. And, we shouldn't stop covering these camps, even if their existence were to be disproven. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is all a bit WP:TL;DR. You may bring forward a clear argument that could help us to make progress and to work towards consensus. Thank you IQinn (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this verbose reply and I'm going to make two short points: a) The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp. It's a vague label, and thus not even an entity. If it pointed to a specific camp, it would be fine, but it isn't. Secondly, it would be different if there were books written on the subject of Moroccan training camp, which suggested that it existed. One sentence in a document which may well not be reliable is not enough. Claritas § 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp." You write this as if you know it to be an established fact. Sorry, you don't know this. I believe the surface meaning intended by the authors of the document was that Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan did attend a specific camp, that they called the "Moroccan training camp". The authors of these memos described other captives attending similar camps, with similar names, tied to the nations. Mohammed Nasim was alleged to have attended an "Arab training camp". Abdullah Kamel al Kandari, Jalal Salam Awad Awad, and Omar Khalifa Mohammed Abu Bakr were all alleged to have attended the "Libyan training camp": [15], [16], [17]. In all these cases it requires no original research to follow the surface meaning. No offense, but it seems to me that to interpret the sentence the way you interpret it requires an WP:RS that interprets it that way. You don't have an WP:RS that interprets the document that way, do you?
If there were a book, or even a newspaper article written about this camp, I would be arguing that it merited a separate article. I would not be arguing it merited being merged and redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is verging on stupidity. Are you trying to tell me, that if someone said in conversation to you "I went to a French school", you would believe they went to a specific school called "French School" ? Please explain how this situation is different. Claritas § 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Claritas. That the term "Moroccan training camp" is not mentioned in the research paper Geo has provided also supports Claritas argumentation. IQinn (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above asserts that the OARDEC memos are "primary sources", and can't be cited without further references to back them up. I believe one has to use highly idiosyncratic interpretation of "primary source" and "secondary source" for this argument. The authors of the OARDEC memos had to read, understand, interpret, collate, select, and summarize information, sometimes conflicting information, contained in multiple reports from at least half a dozen agencies, in order to prepare each memo. This means the memos fully satisfy all the criteria to be considered secondary sources. The OARDEC transcripts are primary sources, the memos are secondary sources. So, without further references, they substantiate that the official position of the DoD was that these camps exist, and this is all that is necessary to justify merging a paragraph, sentence, or list entry into a broader article, and redirecting this article name to the broader article. The reason the Moroccan training camp is not mentioned in the Felter article is because the Felter article was based on a review of the 2004 memos, and the Moroccan camp was described in a memo drafted in 2005. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that the OARDEC summaries could be possibly secondary sources is invalid as OARDEC is an US military body and Guantanamo is run by the US military and the original sources of the informations are unknown but most likely in big chunks produced by the US military itself. OARDEC as well does not have an editorial overboard and zero reputation for fact checking or reputation for anything apart from holding "Kangaroo Tribunals" in addition as numerous habeas corpus cases have shown recently that many allegations in the memos where actually false. Just a laughable claim that this could even come close to secondary sources.
Fact checking again: One of your claims is false again. The Felter article included all transcripts including the memos with a/the Moroccan camp(s) we speak about. So you might provide us with another explanation why they choose not to include this presumed camp into their list? As they choose not to include this into their list so we also should not do it as this would be pure WP:OR. IQinn (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that the OARDEC memos can't be considered secondary sources, because they were drafted by DoD personnel. But you make this assertion without citing any wikipolicies. I suggest that who paid the authors is irrelevant to deciding whehter they should be considered WP:RS, or whether they should be considered secondary sources.
I am going to repeat the key passage from WP:VER -- we aim for "verifiability, not truth". You found and read judges rulings in the habeas petitions? That's excellent! And when you find that those judges rulings comment on specific allegations, and say they aren't credible, then please share those comments. Incorporate them into the appropriate articles, if you feel up to it. If not, leave a note about them on the talk page. That is important info. Doubts the judges express would be highly encyclopedic. But my personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations, or your personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations are completely irrelevant. We are simply not allowed to allow our personal doubts the credibility of our WP:RS to influence what we draft in article space.
WRT the assertion about which memos the Felter paper reviewed all the memos. Could you please re-read the title of the document? "An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". That is, they are CSRT memos, from 2004. These are the same memos reviewed by the team at Seton Hall University School of Law. The memo in question here was one of the 464 prepared for the first annual Administrative Review Board hearings in 2005 [18]. Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WP:RS that is always what we here from people who are WP:Gameing the system. Parts of policies cited out of context and with ignoring the underlying spirit of our policies and the aim we have. Sure we work after the principal verifiability not truth. Because we rely on the truth and fact checking of "secondary sources" to write reliable encyclopedic articles. OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact checking nor any other reputation other that of preparing "Kangaroo courts". It does not have an editorial oversight that could guarantee accuracy of their information or a long reputation as newspaper have and as you know it is verified that they where often wrong with their information. That's the reason why we can not use them in a way as we use secondary sources. They can be used as primary sources with all the care we have to take with primary source material.
I have brought up a long list of arguments why OARDEC can not come even close to be seen as a secondary source and this claim that has been brought forward by just one editor ad nauseum is disruptive and laughable. Please stop disruptive WP:Wikilawyering and continues fillibustering and work towards consensus.
No. That is absolutely wrong. Your claims are almost ridiculous and just repeated false claims without providing serious valid arguments and proof. Where does it say 2004 in the article title??? Sorry but your repeated false claims are simply false. The article text makes clear without any doubt that all memos including the memos we speak about were used. User Geo Swan has a long history of fillibustering and disturbing Afd's without showing any attempted to work towards consensus that does not meed his POV. Sorry to point that out but his behavior is so long standing now and so disruptive that we have to point this out and possible deal with it. Once again stop fillibustering and work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to disagree with you without being accused of "filibustering", "gaming the system", etc.
My references to WP:VER are completely in line with its central theme, not an out of context misinterpretation. Official government publications are accepted as reliable sources for that government's official positions. They remain reliable sources for that official position, even if that position is challenged, refuted, or withdrawn. To assert anything else is to support rewriting history.
I disagree that respondent above has offered a "long list" of reasons why OARDEC memos should not be considered reliable sources for the official government positions that an alleged association with camps like this one justified holding individual for years of extrajudicial detention.
WRT the Felter paper being based solely on documents drafted in 2004. I am mystified why you keep repeating this misconception. ~~I explained this, once again, on User talk:Iqinn.~~

After User:Iqinn erased my attempts to address this misconception from the User talk:Iqinn I compiled both recent explanations in User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/The Felter memo is only based on the first 516 CSRT allegation memos. Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your talk page and as said the Report leaves no doubt that memos that mention Moroccan camps were included in their research. So why did they do not mention a Moroccan camp? You dispute that the memo of Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan was not included in their report? IQinn (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I dispute the 2005 memo was analyzed in the Felter paper, since the Felter paper says it is based on Combatant Status Review Tribunal allegation memos, and the memo in question was not prepared for his CSR Tribunal, but rather for his first annual Administrative Review Board hearing. In the second good faith explanation I offered you on User talk:Iqinn I supplied you with four links [19], [20], [21], [22], from [23], that established that the DoD has published 1,595 memos, not just the 516 analyzed in the Felter paper. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT working towards consensus, I am confident my contribution history shows the complete opposite. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree but repeating things ad nauseum in a verbose way can be a problem. It is hard to learn something if you simply stick to your believes.
These are primary sources and have even lower quality than court papers. These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
I am mystified why you still want to challenge this point and you repeat your misconception. No the report makes explicit clear that all documents including these one here have been used.
As said you are welcome to stick to your believes but it is hard to learn anything if you do so. IQinn (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care." All sources should be used with care. Using the source that justified the continued detention of Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan due to alleged training at the "Moroccan training camp" in Jalalabad to support listing the Moroccan training camp in a table of "Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives", in a broader article on alleged training camps, is a limited and careful use of the source. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes primary sources from that low quality as here need a lot of care. To answer your question. That depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. That might be difficult and it depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. It seems that you are the only one who would be interested to write such an article. So why don't you just give it a try. Give us a break get this article here userfied and write a draft in your user space. Involve the community and let them have a look at your draft and i am sure they will give you helpful comments and might help you to improve on it and then we will see it it will be good enough to be worth to be included into main space. How about that? IQinn (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the OARDEC memos primary sources doesn't mean they primary sources. Simply calling them primary sources doesn't mean they aren't actually completely valid reliable sources -- for the DoD's position.
Why did I just give merging the articles a try? (1) I am not as big a believer in BOLD, particularly for steps that are harder to undo, than they are to do -- like a big series of merges; (2) because I llike seeking input from others first, before I take big steps; (3) I work on controversial topics, and although I take extraordinary steps to comply with NPOV, VER, NOR, and to take civil, specific, good faith feedback into account, I still have these challengers who make these very unpleasant accusations of bad faith, of POV pushing, so I proceed cautiously, show my work, and make proposals like the one you kept ignoring. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for that.
You seem to be saying, above, that you agree that merging the articles on the less well documented camps is not unreasonalbe. Well, for goodness's sake, why then did you nominate a dozen of the related articles for deletion?
What you now seem to be suggesting seems extraordinary. What you now seem to be suggesting is that I have to prepare a draft, in user space, of the merging of these articles, and get approval first, before I can move that draft to article space. I am unaware of any other good faith contributor being asked to submit to this kind of oversight. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:)) these OARDEC documents are doubtless low quality primary sources and as said before you are fee to claim to your false believe but your are so far off with your ridiculous claim and refusal to get the point that it becomes disruptive.
I did not say you should give merging a try. I said you should agree now to move this article here to your user space and to give it a try to write the article that you have suggested in your user space and...and read above. Could you do that? I think there is very strong consensus here in the discussion for that. I am sorry but you do not show any sign of working towards consensus.
You interpreting me absolutely wrong i do think this article here should be deleted and i strongly believe that there is nothing to merge.
Is there any reason why you do not want to have the community have a look at the new article before sending it to main space? There are a lot of strong voices in this discussion that do not see any possibility how that could be merged into anything. I think it is just courtesy to work with the community. Please do not put you personal like and believe over that of the community and the common goal we have. The discussion so far has shown that you are not willing to accept any community consensus or friendly proposal to solve this problem. That has becoume troublesome and disruptive but that is just my personal opinion and i guess you will once more simply disregarding community input and simply stick to your believe. But let me tell you we have policies to block editors who disrupt our work no matter they do it in good faith or bad faith. IQinn (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I encourage you to do your best to refrain from using terms like "stupidity" to dismiss other contributor's arguments?
The memos don't say these individuals went to A Moroccan camp, or A Arab camp. The memos allege the captives went to THE Libyan camp, etc.. I suggest the authors of these memos genuinely believed they were referring to specific, real camps. In some cases the memos state the city or province where the camp was found. This is perfectly acceptable English for referring to a specific camp. Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit fact checking: Your claim is false the memo says: "...attended A Moroccan training camp in Jalalabad for six to seven months."
By the way there is only one source in the article. So you might provide refs when speaking about the captives and memos. Thank you IQinn (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Morocan training camp in Jalalabad? I stand corrected that this camp was referred to using an A. My position, voiced publicly on March 29, 2010, is that articles, like this should be merged into a broader article on all the camps. This ref is perfectly sufficient to support a list entry in a list of all the alleged camps. I don't understand why you object to this. I don't really see an explanation of your objections here.
WRT pluralization -- since I am making comments that apply to similar camp pluralization is appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralization was not always appropriate in the examples you used. Anyway. I have repeatedly ask you to work towards consensus and i have ask you to make clear what exactly from this article here you want to merge to witch article. See the next section. Please stop filibustering and show constructive steps towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - to Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan. There are not enough information for a stand alone article about the camp. The only information in the world we have about the camp are the allegations against Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan so that we should merge it into Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Iqinn has offered this opinion in multiple other {{afd}}s. And I have offered the opinion that merging and redirecting these articles to the individuals alleged to have attended these camps is a dis-service for readers, because the wikipedia's readers should be able to look up a known camp, in the context of a list of all known camps, and compare what is known about, let's say, the Moroccan training camp, and compare it with the information known about other similar camps. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No that is not a "dis-service". It is not up to us to draw associations by clustering minor informations that are based on "primary sources" and where we have secondary sources that contradict our personal conclusions and associations. Do you have another list that mention this camp?? The Moroccan training camp is not mentioned in your military paper: Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". Combating Terrorism Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-30. ***(they list all mayor camps and minor camps) That this camp here in not listed in this paper is good reason that we should not draw our own conclusions based on WP:OR. Why didn't they mention this camp here? They overlooked it? I do not know. They will have had there reasons why they did not mentioned it and we rely on the their judgment and conclusions and we do not do WP:OR. This is not a "dis-service" it is service that guarantees our reader that we do not draw possible false conclusions that are not verified and even here have been contradicted by a source. Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan is still the right choice. IQinn (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe I have already addressed the serious misconception that the memos are "primary sources".
    - As I wrote above the Moroccan camp is not mentioned in the Felter paper's list of other camps because the Felter paper was based on a review of memos drafted in 2004, and the Moroccan camp was mentioned in a memo drafted in 2005. Other than calling the 2005 memo a "primary source" no one has explained why that memo shouldn't be considered just as valid a WP:RS for the DoD's position that there was a Moroccan training camp in Afghanistan, during the Taliban's regime, as the Felter paper.
    - Presenting information from verifiable WP:RS, using a neutral point of view, without inserting novel conclusions, not present in the WP:RS, is not original research. If you are so sure there is a lapse from WP:OR then please identify the specific passage or passages you believe lapse from compliance. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have replied and shown above that these are primary sources.
      - I have shown also above that your claim is false. The Felter papers included these transcripts with the "Moroccan camp(s)". That they do not list a "Moroccan camp" in their paper is proof that we also should not do this.
      - WP:RS is the minor problem here. The problem is that they hardly verify anything in connection of the topic of this article here.
      - As this here once again is slipping into an filibustering waste of time and i do not see much progress and effort from your site. Please take your pick and make exactly clear what you want to mere to exactly what article. (It is not that much and we have already agreed on a merge.) I took my pick some time ago and so you should. Time to stop this fillibuster waste of time so people can get back to work. That get's a bit disruptive recently. IQinn (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Taking the points of the previous respondent, in order, I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe they have offered policy-based arguments that the OARDEC memos are not WP:RS. I ask in return for them to offer a diff to just one instance of a policy-based explanation why the OARDEC memo should not be considered WP:RS. I regard arguments that the credibility of their contents have challengers as irrelevant, per WP:VER.
        
        The Felter paper is an WP:RS, so is the 2005 allegation memo prepared for Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan's 2005 status review hearing. Neither is enough to substantiate a whole article. Either is enough to substantiate a sentence of list entry in a broader article on the general topic of camps that are alleged to have trained suspected terrorists.
        
        The WP:RS in question says little, not enough for a full article, but enough for a sentence or list entry in a larger article.
        
        WRT "filibustering" -- disagreeing with you is not an act of bad faith, and should not open me up to insults. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The OARDEC memos are low quality primary sources less valuable than court papers. They still can be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
        
        So?
        
        So?
        
        Sure and to point someone to fillibuster is also not an act of bad faith. Be more open for critic and you may learn something. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A single ref is a judicial transcript, containing a couple of one-sentence vague mentions of the topic. Basically, as non-notable as a subject could possibly be. Nothing to merge here and nothing is even worthy of a redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete and i suggest the creator should "Userfy" it until there are more sources and information. Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball. IQinn (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida artillery and preps camp: In the source, "a Moroccan training camp" is merely descriptive and not a proper noun. If there were a number of these Moroccan training camp"s, called that by reliable sources, then the descriptive term might be worthy of an article. But there's no evidence of that. To put it another way, if a reliable source reported that a notable person attended "a Vermont prep school", that doesn't merit a Vermont prep school article. First Light (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm answering Geo Swann's question on my talk page.[24] I don't believe that a single mention of a vaguely stated Vermont prep school (to continue my analogy above) is worthy of a merge or mention in any Wikipedia article. If the vague mention became specific, and in multiple reliable sources, then that would be another question. First Light (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my position this camp, and other less well documented camps, should be covered in Afghan training camp, or a similarly broader article. But I think if you look at this you may change your mind that there was a single vague mention. Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best approach would be to userfy the material, so that the original editor could merge it on his own time schedule (if there's anything worth merging), but that approach only makes sense if the editor agrees to it. I proposed this to the editor, but the "response" was non-responsive, so the only other recourse is to delete.--SPhilbrick T 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My sentiment exactly. Userfying is the only reasonable option here. As far as I can tell, the same user, Geo Swan has created literally dozens of these "training camp" articles, each one being based on one-two brief mentions of a camp (or a suspected camp) in the Guantanamo Admin Review Board transcripts. Each one manifestly fails WP:GNG, but they have all been sitting in the mainspace for years. Geo Swan did create a global "merge proposal" back in March of this year, which he mentions above and in reply to your post, for dealing with this veritable plethora of "training camp" articles. I think he mentions this merge proposal in every training camp related AfD, and at one of the current DRVs, and I have seen him mention it to a number of closing admins who closed these AfDs as "delete", lamenting the fact that the proposal has attracted basically no participation since it was created on March 29. Of course, the reason is that nobody here, except for Geo Swan, seems to share his abiding passion for collecting even the most minor and obscure mentions of terrorist training camps in Guantanamo transcripts. By creating this multitude of extremely non-notable "traning camp" articles in mainspace, Geo Swan has created a problem of significant magnitude, and he is not really in the position to complain now that nobody else in the community wants to invest their time and effort in sifting through all this material and trying to make order out of chaos. The only reasonable, the only sane solution here is to move all these articles from the mainspace into Geo Swan's userspace and let him slowly deal with this material on his own schedule (and if at some point in the future someone else shows up willing to get heavily involved in this as well, then great). Nsk92 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize that User:SPhilbrick regarded my initial reply as non-responsive. They posted a followup question (thanks). I trust they find my 2nd response answers their concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 20 July 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 characters in Sea Patrol. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bird (TV character)

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

Non-notable fictional character. All sources are primary and don't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICTION. A brief discussion of the character in the Sea Patrol article should suffice. SnottyWong ^converse 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep character is a main cast member recently introduced into a multi-season show. Google News Archive shows two RS hits for this character, meeting GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with all the other character articles into List of Sea Patrol characters. Unless I've missed one (main) character article of this show by accident, not a single one actually establishes WP:Notability and all articles violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:SPINOUT. Character lists are widely accepted on wikipedia, and all character articles of this TV show are rather short so that they can be merged into the list without losing any information. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / merge: I see the sources from Jclemens. It might be enough to WP:verifynotability. But a merge might be a safer bet. No prejudice against reopening this discussion later. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sgeureka. The sources found by Jclemens are trivial mentions: "Meanwhile, former Neighbours actress Danielle Horvat (Taylah Jordan) will also join the series as Jessica Bird." - that's not enough to base an article around. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per sgeureka, GRuban, or WP:Merge to a Characters section to be created in Sea Patrol (TV series). At the level of coverage they merit, Sea Patrol characters may be well-served by a List of characters in Sea Patrol article. It seems unlikely that an encyclopedic, well-sourced, non-stub article could be written about this character (or most from the show) without resorting to deeply in-universe plot recap. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or merge into a section of a combination article--I have no clear idea just how important her role is in the series, because the article is not sufficiently developed even in the in-universe aspects to explain it--and the articles on the episode are totally unencyclopedic, being one sentence teasers that, in the characteristic TV teaser fashion that we should not tolerate on Wikipedia, omit anything but the statement of the dramatic crisis, without saying what actually happens in the episodes. We have n no rule against detailed in-uiverse plot recap when it's the way to present material. We have a rule against the article of group of articles on a work of fiction as a whole being limited enirely to the in-universe description of the plot. We do have a role about not omitting necessary information if there's a reliable source, in this situation the episodes themselves. But in any case there is certainly room here for production information, for it does not even give the very basic information of just which episodes she appears in. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 15 July 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. Redirect at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margun training camp

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

Terrorist training camp which does not meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources, just one sentence in a document. Claritas § 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I started this article and about two dozen articles about other training camps, way back in 2006 nad 2007. On March 29, 2010, I went on record with a proposal that the separate articles about most of the camps should be merged. I went on record as acknowledging that I hadn't found additional references to support separate articles for most of these camps. There are lots of WP:RS for the Al Farouq training camp, Khalden training camp, Derunta training camp, and Tarnak Farms, so they should remain separate articles. Possibly other articles should remain separate. When I drafted the proposal I was hoping there would be a collegial informed debate on all the camps.
The phenomenon that alleged attendance at a suspect training camp was used, in part, to justify continued detention in Guantanamo is well documented. Felter et al, at West Point, noted that of the first 516 allegation memos, 181 justified the continued detention of captives, in part, because of their alleged attendance at a training camp. Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". Combating Terrorism Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-30.

Merge - to Abdullah Mohammad Khan. There are not enough information for a stand alone article about the camp. All information we do have are the allegations against Abdullah Mohammad Khan so that we should merge it to this highly related article. IQinn (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, with no merges and no redirects. A single sentence mention in a judicial transcript. Far far below any reasonable interpretation of WP:GNG. Nothing of value here that would deserve merging; does not even merit a redirect, not being a likely search term. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best approach would be to userfy the material, so that the original editor merge it on his own time schedule, but that approach only makes sense if the editor agrees to it. I proposed this to the editor, but the "response" was non-responsive, so the only other recourse is to delete.--SPhilbrick T 12:39, 20 July 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 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Land ownership in the Marshall Islands

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

This was previouslý listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land ownership in the Marshall Islands but this was not properly transcluded. Procedural relisting to get this discussion started properly Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom of previous AFD. Poorly sourced article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - create new section in Marshall Islands article. Probably no need for an article on it's own. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural error No tag on the article so readers don't know it is being considered for deletion. Please relist and fix. Also consider mergeing the information Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag has been restored, and original editor did receive notice of the 2nd AfD. AfD was logged properly when created on 14 July. I don't think relisting is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced—and since it can't be verified, it shouldn't get merged back to Marshall Islands. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 15 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph A. Midkiff

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

Contested prod. Subject of article lacks the significant independent coverage required so fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the cited articles is actually about him (as opposed to about a case he was involved in with a quote or two from him). The much-hyped "world record" settlement turns out to be hedged with a lot of fine print. All in all, not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are legitimate, with more sources than Rusty Hardin or Dick Deguerin and they have passed the notability test. Possible movement into a catagory might be necessary or useful.--Greyhelm1 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (CST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JD Costello

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

Delete: The links were dead on this page and there is no 3rd party references. Page is written from a first person perspective and it also includes remarks that are directed at individuals that have no bearing on the page or references. This page is more of a hype page for Costello and were he can and talk badly about others. I believe this page should be either have proper links or be removed 75.181.146.49 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nominate for Deletion. No 3rd Party References. Article was written from a 1st person perspective and was used as a place to vent issues that have not been referenced by other sources. ldeffinbaugh(User talk:ldeffinbaugh) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be a notable wrestler, judging from my failure to find significant coverage in reliable sources. (There is some coverage, but it's all trivial, from unreliable sources, or both.) Robofish (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The NWA is notable but this guy really doesn't sem to be. If you removed the section in the article that basically just covers the NWA territory he worked for, you would literally have 4 sentences. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:11, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Walcott

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT: not yet played a professional match. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Whether one takes WP:ATHLETE or WP:NSPORTS into their reasoning, the subject hasn't played professionally yet and doesn't meet either standard; there is also no indication that he meets the general notability guideline. If he does go on to play for Reading or another club, the page can be re-created then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not currently notable. User can re-submit if and when the subject achieves notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article assets it's own non-notability clearly stating player has not made it big yet. Re-create if and when.--ClubOranje^T 11:57, 19 July 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) 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rush – Profiled!

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

Non-notable interview album. This can be briefly mentioned on their discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly unauthorized and of little public interest, as can be seen by lack of coverage. Probably also unworthy of mention in the band's history. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Doomsdayer520. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, likely unauthorized, release of a non-notable interview. Modern equivalent would be giving a podcast interview it's own Wikipedia article. Rehevkor ✉ 23:13, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Parton

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

Contested PROD. Footballer who has not made an appearance in a fully-professional competition (has only been an unused substitute), thus fails WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. The result should be a formality. Big Dom 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing doing here, at least not yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't made professional debut yet. Add92 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Hill (artist)

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

PROD-contested article was written by author with a potential COI. May not meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO. elektrik SHOOS 17:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artist is subject of sufficient publications. Artist is not a living person, therefore this article is not an example of blatant sales spam. When an artist passes from the world of the living, let the art historians do their work... Carrite (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He exhibited at MoMA, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Smithsonian and others and the list of publications easily establishes notability. The article needs references and general clean-up. freshacconci talktalk 23:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the article needs work and should have been titled Clinton Hill (artist), which it is now...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exhibitions history and publications available establish notability. Ty 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources. He seems like a significant artist Vartanza (talk) 10:50, 17 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hazell

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

Footballer who has not played in a fully-professional competiton (the FA Cup is open to semi-professional and amateur teams). Only appearance was against semi-pro AFC Telford United, so the player fails WP:ATHLETE. Coverage is only routine match reports etc. so also fails WP:GNG. Big Dom 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FA Cup appearances for professional teams have been deemed notable enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not aware of this but if it's true it makes a complete mockery of the guideline. Big Dom 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally only argued successfully where professional tema meets professional team - not where pro team meets non pro team.--ClubOranje^T 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE requires that a sportsman competes at a fully professional level - making just one solitary substitute appearance in a cup match against a semi-pro team doesn't satisfy that in my opinion, and I can't find anything that would suggest he would pass general notability guidelines at the moment. Bettia (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ATHLETE requires appearances at a fully professional level. The FA Cup is not fully professional (the game wasn't even against a professional team!), so appearing in that isn't good enough. I expect he will make a fully professional appearance in the future, and if so he can have an article - but not yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:24, 16 July 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab (album)

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

Per WP:NALBUMS there is no tracklisting or reliable source for the release date. The album has not charted and there is no information here that couldnt be merged to Young Buck. Independent articles should only be created if there is enough detailed information for a sizeable article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are you talking about the release date is sourced by "HipHopDX" which is a very reliable source. Red Flag on the Right Side 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: Regardless of the release date, the complete track listing is still unknown. Nom's right, there's nothing here that couldn't be merged to the artist's article. That's where information about this yet-to-be-released album should remain until the title, release date and track listing have all been verified. Cliff smith ^talk 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think we have a big group of sourced colabos and producers and two singles with a release date coming in less then two months and a tracklist will be out in like a months time. Red Flag on the Right Side 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why we have a massive problem on wikipedia because users cannot understand or read the policies they helped create properly. WP:NALBUMS clearly says that regardles of notability stand alone articles should not be created where there is not sufficient detail. Lets wait and see what other's think. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate (as per Lil-unique1 (talk), below) Delete Quoting WP:NALBUMS: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. No problem with the article being recreated once all three exist. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (strikeout/!vote changed --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also from NALBUMS "Unless enough reliable sources exist to create a resonably detailed article" which is what we have here. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call several sentences a detailed article? Also the criteria you've quote applies once you have a confirmed title, release date and track listing because those alone do not necessarily make an album notable. Lets take an example say: Kelly Rowland (album). That album is not due till September 21, 2010 but is way more detailed than this album. Even Basic Instinct (album) is more detailed than this. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the messed up thing. Pop music gets way more coverage than a dope independant hip hop artists album. Red Flag on the Right Side 21:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we have guidelines for a reason. To call Kelly Rowland and Ciara pop is ridiculous when there are R&B artist. Ciara does very few interviews etc. One of the sources on this page is facebook which is 100% not a reliable source. This info could be merged to the artist's page as aside from the single releases everything else is speculative. There's not public confirmation via artist or label of a track listing, release date or even name. The cover art is not even sourced. On the image's upload page it says "Derived from a digital capture of the album cover" which is ridiculous as the album has not be released so how is it confirmed? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX got that release date from the record company and the title has been confirmed by Young Buck in interveiws. Red Flag on the Right Side 21:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) RedFlag: First, the phrase you quoted does not appear in WP:NALBUMS, on that page, the word "detailed" only appears in sections on composers and individual songs, at least in my browser. Seriously. I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk, but I want to precisely address your question. As I read the whole of WP:NALBUMS, it seems clear to me that the text I cited is most appropriate for the judging of prospective albums. Can you let me know why you think I'm wrong in terms of WikiPolicy? Thanks. (BTW: love the username) --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: You're right that notability isn't fair, it's just the ground rules. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I am tempted to push the Rowland article to AfD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nominating Kelly Rowland (album) for deletion is silly. It was previously nominated but sent to the article incubator. Administrators approved its recreation. There is too much info to merge in to the artist's page as it is detailed and even has 2 charted singles. That is completely different situation to this article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you are correct, and I failed at what was in part a poor attempt at good-natured humor. "Tempted to" and "would" are different things. My apologies. I'll pick up the real discussion elsewhere. Thanks.--j⚛e decker ^talk 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion if Red Flag on the Right Side permits I would request to an admin that the discussion be closed and the article be sent to the WP:INCUBATOR? Otherwise the AfD should run its course --21:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would support that suggestion if Red Flag on the Right Side does. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unless a Keep is the final result. Red Flag on the Right Side 23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will be soon released and after which content may be sourced due to release and content will also then be provided by other users.Yousou (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into artist. This source indicates some notability.--Pink Bull 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment the new MTV source says whenever it gets released which is most certainly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. What baffles me is the number of users who don't appear to realise that the creation of an an article for an album which has not been released (and has no firm release date), which has no track listing and only a limited amount of coverage is a clear breach of our policy on notability of albums (WP:NALBUMS). All of the 'keep' comments say it should be kept because it will be released soon... but that doesn't address its current notability. Additionall NALBUMS says independent articles should only be created where there is sufficient detail yet none of these comments address those concerns. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that the general notability guidelines trumps any sub notability guidelines.--Pink Bull 15:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That view is floored as the whole point of sub-notability guidelines is an addition to GNG. Each sub-policy is GNG in relation to a specific project. If you look at WP:NALBUMS (and music notability in general) it says in addition to GNG ... etc. Music is such a subject where information channels are both formal and informal. Speculation is rife and things often change much which is why WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS exists --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 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 delete as G11 by Athaenara. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken monkey (card game)

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

Previoulsy prodded & prod2. Failes WP:MADEUP, unsourced & I suspect is WP:OR. Author contested prod so throwing to AFD Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Made up nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MADEUP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI and probably a host of other guidelines. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Madeup nonsense by wacky students. Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note from author : I appreciate your concern and full understand that of course, wikipedia just isn't able to accept any new card game which, as previously labelled, "wacky students" come up with. However, i feel i must defend this article's and game's presence on wikipedia.

The drunken monkey card game is not simply "nonsense", but instead an entertaining and thoughtfully produced card game, featuring all the makings of a proper game which i can see being played in rooms across the globe.

Only recently, my friends and i checked a wikipedia page which lists a certain number of card games on the site, checking several different articles. Eventually, we found an article of a game which wasn't particularly famous, but was still enjoyable and a hit throughout our college.

What this surely shows is that, if a game is good enough, the power of wikipedia has the ability to make it famous and popular and immortalise it amongst the ranks of the famous card games we all know and love. Admittedly, this game may never be regarded as highly as "cheat", "old maid" or "whist", but it's inclusion, and with a little extra help such as links to and from other card game pages, and the website we plan to create later in the year, this game may be found, enjoyed and spread by others around the globe, and if this happens only a small number of times it must surely be considered a success on the part of ourselves and wikipedia.

Wikipedia must have limits, and it must have guidelines, but i am appealing for your leniency just one time so that me and my friends may see the game we so thoroughly created and enjoy so much on the website, if not only for our enjoyment, then the hope that it may one day be as popular as other card games played globally in rooms around the world. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the game is in fact as entertaining and thoughtful it will surely receive enough third-party coverage and media attention to include it in Wikipedia. Until then this game counts just as trivial and Wikipedia is by no means a platform to help anything become famous. We add stuff that is already notable and famous, not the other way round. De728631 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is completely unsourced, and the subject itself is non-notable; I was unable to find significant independent coverage of this game. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems like a fairly stubborn response, and to a degree i agree with you. However, "third party coverage" is, as you must surely agree, fairly tough to acquire, especially without something respectful like a wikipedia entry to help the popularity of the game in question.

I appreciate the sarcasm intended on the "entertaining and thoughtful" part as well. I may well be swimming against the tide here, but until there is no other option for dispute i feel like i am responsible to argue for the freedom to post articles which other may find interesting on wikipedia. To simply delete this without respecting my opinion seems awfully dictatorial and hieratic. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if i cannot win this argument, i would at least appreciate an apology for your not being able to accept this article on the grounds of guidelines, even if it is just your opinion that it should be deleted. Thankyou for regarding this article so quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure anyone is entitled to an apology for Wikipedia's notability guidelines being what they are. They are out there in plain sight for anyone to read, mentioned in the new article creation guides and article creation wizard, and have been available for years before this article was ever created. Not being aware of them doesn't hurt anything, don't get me wrong. But you are unlikely to receive an apology for you having failed to read them and created an article that does not meet them. For what it's worth, I apologize for your frustration, I suppose. Getting used to Wikipedia isn't easy. - Vianello (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an article about an 'idea made up with your friends yesterday' from the 'Articles you should never make' which I saw here once.Yousou (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP by page author admission, no history established to prove this game has any widespread acknowledgment. I'm not saying it's a bad game. It may well be fine and fun. But Wikipedia is for things that are already noted widely (relatively, anyway), not an avenue for them to become widely noted. - Vianello (Talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really much else to say here except that I predict snow in the forecast. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no complaints here (author). I've been around the internet a long time and i know what i'm dealing with. I'd like to thank people who responded well (including the guy the apologized "for my frustration", i appreciate it. To everyone else who seem to stubborn and power-mad to show even slight empathy, i couldn't really care less of your opinion.

thankyou, and i'd appreciate no-one else post on here and instead just allow the article and this to be deleted in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Dfouni

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

Contested prod. Lots of claims but there is no evidence of significant coverage of the subject of the article in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Despite the extensive reference list provided, none are about Dfouni, some have a vox pox by him (mainly trade article/PR) and many do not mention him at all. Nuttah (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Article is a joke. 34 references and, what, none that actually mention him? Christopher Connor (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is just a résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:18, 21 July 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 List of bus routes in the West Midlands county. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Stratford Road bus Corridor

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article on two bus routes. No significant independent coverage available so fails WP:GNG. Reads very much as original research Nuttah (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in the West Midlands county. The article is unreferenced and lacks any kind of sufficient coverage, and the essential information about these routes is already mentioned in the list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Catalyst. I've tried eight different Google searches using forms of this name and I still can't find any secondary sources covering this. There are one or two primary sources so it probably isn't original research, but nothing to suggest that it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed Besic

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a pro league. bneidror (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamed Bešić. Same article without the accents. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G4 Speedy aside from which, he's a 17 year old kid that has not played notably yet. Until he at the very least plays a game of football at a notable level this article should not exist.--ClubOranje^T 11:22, 19 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Wirral High School

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

No notability for this high school. Sulmues (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent is that all secondary schools are presumed notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please give me a link to say that all secondary schools are notable? --Sulmues (Talk) 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's in the description of the common outcome, summarized in WP:OUTCOMES#Education. "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is WP:ORG. Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability." As with a lot of gray areas, there's never been a clearly adopted policy on this one. The outcome page, by it's very title, reflects how matters are usually resolved in practice in a deletion debate. There are plenty of bridgeplayers who like to form a task forces with heated debates that result in nothing but hard feelings, but the real fashioning of "policy" takes place here at AfD--- the people who argue keep and delete don't talk about their philosophies, they just carry them out, majority rules. If you want to watch people write, you go to a policy debate. If you want to see something get done, you come here. I don't think I've seen a high school article deleted in the last three years, but if you can persuade enough people that there should be a different outcome, this one will be deleted. Folks can complain all they want to that we're not supported by policy; as far as I'm concerned, the participants in the discussions are the policy. Mandsford 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fundamentally disagree with the current "consensus" that all high schools have inherited notability. This isn't a vote from me, just a statement of opinion; to let editors know that not everybody considers it a sin to nominate an article about a high school for deletion. Hopefully in the future this consensus will change. Them FromSpace 01:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone considers it a sin; well, there's this one guy who does, but he says he's filled with the Holy School Spirit; I'm afraid that at some point, some moron will decide to make 100 little stub articles that say "_____ High School is a high school in ______" and then get patted on the back for the "contribution", but overall, I think it's a good compromise. It evolved from the concept that all inhabited places are notable (don't get me started on that one), and the joke was "on Wikipedia, they don't think that a high school is notable... but the f***ing bus stop is". There are arguments on both sides, the main one being for it being that the high school is one of the more important parts of a community and it confers the earliest certification of education for the residents, etc. etc. It might sound weak, and there are others who have similar doubts, which is why there's never been an official policy hammered out. Attitudes about things change on Wikipedia, so there might someday be a consensus toward deleting rather than retaining the school articles. It's happened with other things that used to be kept by an overwhelming vote, like TV episodes and the aforementioned bus stops. Mandsford 03:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment completely irrelevant to this AfD; closer please ignore.) I see a lot of these when I'm going through the cats of articles needing geocoding, and what strikes me is the wretched condition that most of them are in (and the prevalence of content copy/pasted from the schools' Web sites, but that's a different matter). One would think that building a good article about one's secondary school would be a educational exercise in researching, citing sources, etc., that would interest students and that teachers might well use as a class project, but apparently few do. Deor (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all high schools are deemed notable. However, the presumption that all high school are actually notable might be re-examined. Then the results should be applied as per WP:SIMTREATMENTISOK (similiar treatment is okay), which is not the same as other crap exists. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reasoning for keeping high schools is given in WP:NHS. High schools are significant institutions in their community and, with sufficient research, experience shows that suitable sources can be found. Even a cursory web search show sources that can be added to meet WP:ORG. This school was was established by the merger of 'Eastham Secondary School' and 'Bromborough Secondary School' so the history of all three schools is available to be incorporated. TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over one thousand people are educated in this school, and hundreds of thousands of people will have been educated here in the past. That's notable enough for me. TALL^eN ^talk 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education. First Light (talk) 17:51, 17 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TtH

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability due to poor sourcing. BLGM5 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This would appear to be substantially identical to the prior version that has already been deleted after full discussion. I am uncertain why it was restored. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Please note that the article wasn't restored in 2007; it was re-created. The article as it is now is different to the version that was deleted in October 2006. I found the article while leafing through the deleted contributions of Conversion script, and just decided to undelete the old versions per the advice at this section of DRV. I didn't think that the article qualified for speedy deletion at the time. Graham87 03:10, 15 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business chess

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

I see no proof that this game is notable. SyG (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources indicate otherwise. But does need clean up and to be wikified. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Some users work on corrections. Not as fast, as desired, but the text will be corrected.--Zara-arush (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup though. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be a translation of the article on the Russian Wikipedia. Difficult for me to evaluate the quality of the Russian sources - I would have to trust the judgment of Russian speakers. I do know however that the

64 magazine is a prestigious chess publication and should be considered a reliable source.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've marked it with {{translated page|ru}} on its talk page; although I don't speak or read Russian the structure of the article, images and so on are a fairly sure bet that it is, and translated pages need to be properly attributed. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Dewritech (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is no reason not to if it can be rewritten. It's not like some card game that 5 kids play in their clubhouse. Also, I don't think that the writers main language is English, so it is likely the best he could do. Old Al (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 15 or so sources to things like chess websites and chess magazines is what qualifies as "notable". The nomination was based on "I see no proof that this game is notable." Where there are verifiable sources in the article itself, then that argument usually fails, unless there's a doubt about the reliability of the sources. The test of notability is not whether something deserves to be noticed by independent sources, but whether it actually is noticed. Mandsford 21:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most sources are either videos from YouTube (which I do not see as notable) or publications from the author of the Wikipedia article. There is no mention of, for example, how many people practise this activity, or if there is a federation about it, or a school. SyG (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've done a first-pass copy edit and removed {{wikify}} and {{copyedit}}. (I've left {{confusing}}, though I understood it.) Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources including National television coverage. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:12, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Smith

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

Nothing notable in this person SyG (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, completely NN.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be some sort of veiled attack page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears not notable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above, plus the article says that he is an international chess player. He is not a member of FIDE, so he does not seem to be playing at a high level. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an international chess player and footballing prodigy who is renowned for his baking skills?! Someone is having a wee joke methinks... Giant Snowman 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP non-notable very exaggerated partial hoax of egotist who did make it to the British Land UK Chess Challenge Scottish Megafinal 2002 in the U-12 division, but did not "represent Scotland", and never played notable football.--ClubOranje^T 11:45, 19 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoose (server)

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

Fails WP:GNG Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also an essentially promotional article containing little more than a features list. No indication that this software product has any long term historical notability: a standalone or embedded web server written in C, which is designed to be very small, multi-threaded, and portable.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:22, 21 July 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 closed and replaced with second complete nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Cobra (album) (2nd nomination). (Non-admin closure for procedural reasons) --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Cobra (album)

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

Well ... basically what the IP edited the page to say. There's no confirmation of this album. It's just blank. -- A ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this nominated right? There's no AfD template at the top of the article, and the history shows that one wasn't even added. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was at least one procedural error with this original AfD. I completed the process in the form of another nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Cobra (album) (2nd nomination) and that's where the active discussion is now. This one here can be closed for procedural reasons. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 15 July 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. May well be an article to be written here, but this isn't it, as explained well by the comments. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayanim

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

nominating for deletion, this is a clear antisemitic conspiracy, the sources provided are non-peer reviewed, a quick google search leads to neo-nazi and conspiracy sites...wikipedia having this article just feeds hate

Viewfromthebridge (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quick Google search turns up the books cited in the article, and several more besides. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and Gbooks have multiple reliable sources which are neither neo-Nazi nor conspiracy. Edward321 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The article is a conspiracy-theory with anti-Semitic overtones. The main source cited is Gordon Thomas, a notable anti-Israel conspriacy theorist. For example, For example, Gordon Thomas in his book "Gideon's Spies" alleges that Yitzhak Rabin was not assassinated: "The surgeons insisted there was no possible gunshot wound that would have allowed Rabin to leave the attack site showing no evidence of a wound and arrive at the hospital with multiple damage ... subsequently the doctors have refused to discuss the matter." This way lies madness.AMuseo (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is The Jerusalem Post in the habit of publishing anti-semitic conspiracy theories?[25] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You puzzle me, the article you link to is about Palestinians who have given information to Israel, in exchange for which they are allowed to resettle in Israel.AMuseo (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a good-faith search on google scholar. There articles about Palestinian sayanim. Google scholar leads with one from the Journal of Palestine Studies about Palestinian Arabs who work with the Mossad. There is a scholarly article "The Mossad Imagined: The Israeli Secret Service in Film and Fiction" describing these Jewish sayanim as stock characters in fiction about the Mossad. The third citation is from an apparently a self-published paper called Judonia Rising a typical screed by web-based lunatic anti-Semite Joachim Martillo. the next is from a book by one Matt Webster, about whom I know nothing except that he does not google well. the next citation seems to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory [26] These are the only citations in the first 10 pages of google scholar search term "sayanim." The term does seem to be applied to some Palestinian Arabs and non-Israeli Jews. but it is apparently primarily used by conspiracy theorists and fiction writers.AMuseo (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what this needs is a rewrite getting rid of the unfounded statement that all sayanim are Jews, and ensuring that conspiracy theories are presented as such. This could include an outline of the views of Thomas and Ostrovsky, but should be based on reliable sources discussing those views rather than on those writers' own works. The Jerusalem Post article that I linked above shows that "sayanim" (helpers) is the Israeli security services' own preferred name for these people (supplanting the previously used name "mashtapim" (collaborators)), so the title itself can't be claimed to originate from the conspiracy theorists. I'm not volunteering to do such a rewrite myself, so will not put the word "keep" in bold letters, but I think that this has the potential to be made into a neutral encyclopedic article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate. The article in its current form is of very questionable accuracy (for example, the unsourced claim that Sayanim must be "100% Jewish"; is anyone alive today really 100% anything?) Over half the article is unsourced, and the two sources currently used appear to fail WP: RS. Normally, that would be grounds for improvement, not deletion. In this case, however, the article is in such bad shape as to actually be harmful to the image of Wikipedia; as such, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. It should at the very least be moved to the WP: Article Incubator, and at most deleted outright. Which of the two paths is taken depends on whether this topic is actually notable or not; I don't know for sure (since I'm not an expert in this area). Stonemason89 (talk)
Delete. Clearly nonsense as noted above. No problem, however, in starting over about Arab "sayanim". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 20 July 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. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 triple homicide in Easton, Pennsylvania

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a summary of a past event. The crime occurred in 2007 and the article appears to have not been factually updated 2009. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the primary author here. It's one that I started earlier in my Wikipedia career, before I really knew the policies. That being said, I still think it warrants an article, although it needs improvement (Unfortunately, I haven't had time to update it in quite a while.) Since I've written this, Ali Davis has been found guilty and Lewis Gray pleaded guilty. This was considered one of the bloodiest crimes in the Lehigh Valley (the third largest metropolitan area in Pennsylvania) in many years. The article is way out of date, but that's a reason for improving the article (and tagging it with {{Outofdate}}) but not deletion. — Hun ter Kahn 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination fails to cite a reason for deletion. Many articles in the Wikipedia could be characterized as summaries of past events. The lack of updating signifies nothing. If the article needs an {{Update}} template, then add it. patsw (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - perhaps it should be moved to a page with a more accurate name (though to be hnoest I can think of one; maybe Eaton Murders (2007) or something). Notable event but Wiki is not a newspaper. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N/CA as further reading. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 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 delete under criterion G5. The creating account was clearly being used by a blocked/banned user. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hall D'Addario

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Hall D'Addario

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

No notable roles. No reliable sources provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 14 July 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, nomination withdrawn, no remaining delete votes other than mine, and I withdrew that too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tits Zombie

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

~~Appears to be a completely non-notable film.~~ see below — Timneu22 · talk 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, weakly and without prejudice, unless and until this can be sourced. Damn, that's high concept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because I've now learned a handy new word in Japanese: kyonyū. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Films-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in relevant news channels, as evidenced in the "Find sources" links above. Minimal sources added to article. Hqb (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I could be persuaded to keep this; the article's nomination state isn't the same as the current state. I'll wait for some more votes. — Timneu22 · talk 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TBH I wish I knew which of these horror sites could class as reliable sources but I can't be chewed to trawl through them. However, the Pop Matters cite is a nice one, Cinema Blend have thoughts in a similar vein. It's going to be distributed in the UK by this Terracotta Films, which has got attention from the UK anime/asian film magazine Neo (expect a review to follow in due course). It's early days, but it has already got attention and it's extremely unlikely that a string of reviews won't follow its release. Someone another 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be buzz here, and while like Someone another I can't tell which of the g-hits have been vetted as fully reliable, several appear promising. Between those and given the minimal sources already added to the article, I think this one's a keeper. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CHANGE NOMINATION TO WEAK KEEP, as the article we see now is not the same as the nominated version. If Ihcyoc changes his vote to keep, I'll speedy close. — Timneu22 · talk 18:14, 14 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snorkel Embedded Web Server

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

fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising, and this article about a run of the mill software product makes utterly no case for long term historical notability or technical, cultural, or historical significance: a light weight multi-threaded embedded web server API written in C. It is distributed as a runtime library for UNIX-like and Windows platforms. It was designed to provide C/C++ developers with an easy way to add web-interfaces to natively built applications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Smerdis of Tlön. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:24, 21 July 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 delete. Speedy deleted as no indication of importance or significance and original decliner has withdrawn objection. Davewild (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Gilmore

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

Non-notable musician. More of a "hope to be a musician some day" than an actual musician yet. This would be a speedy deletion except for this conversation that indicates that at least one editor does not agree that speedy is called for. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE AS A7. This is clear A7, and I've commented at WT:CSD to verify it. The fact that A7 was denied is well beyond me. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN 18 year old singer. Unreferenced BLP, no references in reliable sources that I could see...but maybe they were drowned in the sea of twitter and myspace and whatever fan pages. Syrthiss (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in here to suggest that she's a notable singer. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7): I objected since it seemed the article claimed that she performed with a notable musician, which while not enough to meet our notability standards, would be enough to pass A7. It seems I may have misread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like her grandfather may have sang with a notable musician...but not her. Syrthiss (talk) 13:33, 14 July 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 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hird

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

Non notable BLP, as the subject has not played in a fully professional league and thus does not meet the notability criteria for football players. Prod was contested by a vandal IP, but I expect the subject and creator (conflict of interest?) to oppose as well, so I am taking it to AFD. Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nom says, he hasn't played in a fully-pro league (Durham City A.F.C. have been no higher than the Northern Premier League Premier Division), thus failing Wp:ATHLETE. I am also unable to find anything that means he passes Wp:GNG either. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and the sub-guideline ATHLETE. Big Dom 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player has not only never played professionally, he has never even played for the non-professional team he is currently registered to if the infobox is right (which it presumably is given that the article has blatantly been created by young Mr Hird himself......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resume or I♥me page, either way, no notability, youth only player.--ClubOranje^T 11:56, 19 July 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 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Rails

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

Non-notable software project. Prod denied based on the comment "now notable", but the only change was the addition of two references that did not mention this software at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated article to add thirdparty references related to the industry now, so now it should not be deleted. --114.77.8.137 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references added are to forums, not to reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added even more sources, two are highly regarded websites in the train simulator community, and another forum which has a poll that prooves that over 100 people are "Strongly Interested" (I don't know how a poll even if it is on a forum could not be considered a 'reliable source'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.8.137 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Of the new sources added,
      - http://msts.steam4me.net/# is a press release from the organization itself
      - http://www.tsnz.co.nz/ is a duplicate of the Steam4Me announcement
      - http://www.warts-n-all.com/viewtopic.php?f=324&t=105354&start=45 is yet another forum
    - None of these constitutes significant coverage in independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The steam4me.net is not a press release from the organisation itself, it has a post:

"3 December 2009 New Simulator In Preparation Wayne Campbell, who avid MSTS fans will know as the creator of the super-detailed London and Port Stanley route has commenced work on an MSTS-compatible open source train simulator called Open Rails. Whilst still in alpha release, it's a credit to Wayne and his team that routes and rolling stock are already working in this new simulation. Exciting news indeed as we witness the gradual wind-down in availability of MSTS disks. Click on the link above to have a look or download the working alpha release. (Visitor count today is 2,749,500}"

There is also a Release Announcement dated 27 May 2010, almost 6 months later, on the same page, which might be what you are referring to as a "Press Release" when this is not a "Press Release" as it has not been released or intended for the Press, it is a Release Announcement for a software product, it is a very big difference (One if Marketing, and one if Informational). --114.77.8.137 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish the project well, but if there's no coverage of it beyond forums and community sites, then it won't be included in WP. Marasmusine (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no refs in WP:V or WP:RS. GregJackP Boomer! 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Like User:Marasmusine I couldn't find anything but forums and fansites; nothing that is a reliable source. Still, I wish these folks the best, too. It certainly looks interesting, but unfortunately just doesn't have the coverage to stay at Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 15:32, 16 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli rock artists

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

This article is redundant to many related categories and pages on the wiki (for example, Israeli rock, category:Israeli rock music groups and category:Israeli rock musicians, List of Israeli musical artists, etc.). Similar topic lists such as List of American rock artists (and other nationalities) don't exist. "Israeli rock" is not clearly defined and is not an established subgenre; it is just a compound word of "Israeli" and "rock". I think this is not an appropriate topic for a list but maybe another procedure can be taken instead of deletion (merging or redirecting) so I'm elevating for discussion. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason :

-- Maashatra11 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - tage entries into categories instead. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1930s, an equivalent AfD which I now nominated but concerning pop music. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 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 closed as a side-effect of speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUROLIVE PROFESSIONAL B1520 PRO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 July 2010

Ultrabass BXR1800H

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

The article is written like a catalog. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 17:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Armbrust. Note there is a second discussion that includes this page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUROLIVE PROFESSIONAL B1520 PRO, you might want to merge them (if this is norm) --Muhandes (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:19, 14 July 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 Speedily deleted G12 (non-admin closure). SnottyWong ^express 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, UAE

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

Some parts read like an advertisement; contains some unencyclopaedic content and too much detail; poorly organised and structured. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 as unambiguous copyright violation of various pages on this site. A variation on the title of this article (Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (United Arab Emirates)) was already speedily deleted for the same reason a few weeks ago. I have added a CSD tag to the article. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:07, 14 July 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 Delete as copyright violation Camw (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Sutherland (Australia)

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

NPOV. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article had a legitamate refference, and its purpose its to show further information to the Football Hall of Fame (Australia) page Dingyv03 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a possibility this subject could be notable, but it has been deleted as the content was a copyright infringement of the text contained on the Hall of Fame website. Camw (talk) 07:54, 14 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Tsuruoka

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Pkeets (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Canadian candidates for deletion Moxy (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a massive puff piece, with a good portion of the references on the subject's website. A related article is currently up for AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The website you have identified as "the subject's website" is a secondary source unrelated to Mas Tsuruoka. He is well known as a pioneer of Canadian martial arts and meets at least two of the criteria of WP:WPMA/N, that is: subject of an independent article/documentary and founder of notable karate style in Canada. In addition, Tsuruoka meets the requirements of WP:BIO, as he has received a well-known and significant cultural award for his accomplishments. He has also made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field, promoting karate world-wide, and served as an elected official of governing organizations. All the references given are secondary, including highly reliable sources such as Black Belt Magazine, Dragon Times, and Cocoran's The Original Martial Arts Encyclopedia: Tradition, History, Pioneers.Pkeets (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per hes Order of Ontario that is the most prestigious official honour in the Canadian province of Ontario[27] - Notability has been clearly established and is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It does need a good copy edit like Ryulong said for its tone. Moxy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's a recipient of the Order of Ontario, and apparently significant in the world of martial arts in Canada - good enough for me. PK T(alk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability requirements, WP:GNG Chzz ► 22:20, 14 July 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 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Mango Tree

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. Probably should be CSD for advertising. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly NN - advertisement. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The main text of the article reads like a press clipping, probably a copyvio. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:27, 21 July 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. RN 03:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Murphy

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

Non-notable homeopath. The only secondary coverage I can find is the statement that he ran a workshop in Delhi in 2004, here. Google News has nothing of interest to deliver. Google Books does have a number of hits, but if you look at the results closely, you don't get much more than mentions (one as "prominent", one guy chiming in with our subject in a by with a doubtful publisher (same author as this one))--not the significant discussion as required by WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Murphy is a notable Homeopathy for his Homeopathic Medical Repertory, which differed from other Repertories in Homeopathy's 200 year history. You obviously are unaware of Homeopathy and it's history and therefore not suited to make a claim on who is notable and who is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhpedia (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, xe is, because xe has done the legwork of looking for sources, and found (as reported above) nothing. Your counterargument is just a standard distraction fallacy, that attempts to avoid talking about the core problems of lack of sources. Sources are your best and only arguments. Ad hominems will simply be entirely discounted by the closing administrator. If you want to make an argument that holds any water at all, you'd better get to work and start citing some sources for your BLP writing right now. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the theory of homeopathy worked with Scotch whiskey, I'd be a happy man right now. But that aside, there are no sources. No sources, no notability, no Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suggest ignoring the "homeopathic gadol" nonsense implied above. With regard to sources, the only thing we have to go on are his books. However, WorldCat shows paltry holdings (numbers in parenthesis): "Homeopathic Medical Repertory" (~20), "Robin Murphy's keynotes of the materia medica : commentary & group discussion" (1), "Case Analysis and Prescribing Techniques" (1), "Lotus Materia Medica" (~10), "Homeopathic remedy guide" (3). In other words, he's written a lot of material that almost nobody has taken note of. Much of the article has the flavor of WP:PROMOTION, including the link to his commercial website. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Vanity page. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doubtful notability. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is XE? Is he/her a homeopath? in the field of Homeopathy? Materia Medica's are the collection of medical information of homeopathy since its inception. It is an invaluable tool that homeopaths use in treating their patients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_Materia_Medica . Most repertories have followed a similar struction and schema since the publishing of Kent's Repertory in 1897. A major complaint of new homeopathic students and practitioners alike was the presentation of the information in the materia medica. Murphy's repertory changed that with an easier, more unified and comprehensive schema, updated language that was outdated that most people today wouldn't understand, alphabetized the chapters and rubrics (huge difference for usage) and included compilations of the major historical repertory works but also clinical experiences of not only Dr. Murphy's 30 years of practice but also modern homeopathy as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a homeopath in the world that doesn't know of or more likely doesn't own the Murphy repertory or his Remedy Guide (previously Materia Medica). It's importance to the field of homeopathy is evident in the fact that it's a standard text for many a homeopathic colleges around the world and its inclusion in professional homeopathic repertorization software used by practitioners in the field alongside historic works like that of Kent, Boericke, Phatak. Additionally thousands of medical professionals (alternative and mainstream) around the world have studied with him such as Luc De Shepper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_De_Schepper

Software CARA - http://www.miccant.com/isisvision/rep_murphy.shtml | http://www.miccant.com/isisvision/index.shtml Radar - http://www.archibel.com/113+M532d1b5b047.html MacRepertory - http://www.kenthomeopathic.com/macrepertory.html

Links and posts The Japan Royal Academy of Homeopathy - http://www.rah-uk.com/E_lecturers-overseas.html Holistic and Homeopathic Resource Center, Cairo - http://www.h2rc2.com/Homeopathy/Homeopathy/ProfCourse.html | http://www.h2rc2.com/Homeopathy/Homeopathy/HomeoHistEgypt.html Appears in the upcoming documentary on Homeopathy, interviewed during his treatment of patients in Haiti http://www.blinddogfilms.com/homeopathy/ | http://vimeo.com/12039816 http://www.indiaspace.com/homeopathy/eileen.htm http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com/2010/01/murphy-repertory.html Robin Murphy cited as source - http://wikipeutics.wikispaces.com/search/view/robin+murphy Online CV's showing study with Murphy - http://www.universaldancer.com/CV.html | http://www.pathways.cu.edu.eg/CVs/NCW-CV/Dr.%20Hanaa%20Shams%20CV.htm Listing of educational materials by Murphy - http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/auth.asp?n=288 Homeotimes article reference - http://www.homoeotimes.com/august04/html/heklalava.htm Quoting Murphys texts - http://medicinegarden.com/store/copy/fe_foxglove.html Murphy texts reference - http://www.ewildagain.org/Homeopathy/homeopathictips.htm Numerous Google Book reference search citations - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks%3A1&q=robin+murphy+nd&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=robin+murphy+nd&gs_rfai=&fp=927ed357e21039b4 http://www.amazon.com/review/RO068QZB4GYQV

And yes it may sound like an "ad hominem" attack or rebuttal but the truth is if you have never tried to prescribe or utilize a repertory to compare you have no idea how important this work is to the field. I can type in the names of several notable Homeopaths into Google News and nothing comes up, not because they aren't important to the field. We are talking about a smaller alternative field non-mainstream field. My response may have come of a bit rough but the point is without a familiarity of the field a few standard net searches alone can't qualify who is and who isn't notable in that field. A blatant example is the person who marked this article for deletion and JFW negates an published endorsement of Robin Murphy as "prominent" from a book by the Vice President of the National Center for Homeopathy with "doubtful". Again it sounds like users Drmies and XE (who?) aren't able to make a proper informed judgment on Homeopathy. How can you say from the outside who is important to those inside?

Noted modern homeopaths and authors Google News search Luc De Schepper - http://www.google.com/search?q=Luc%20De%20Schepper&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn Vithoulkas, George - http://www.google.com/search?q=Vithoulkas%2C%20George&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn Dana Ullman - http://www.google.com/search?q=Dana%20Ullman&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn Jeremy Sherr - http://www.google.com/search?q=Jeremy%20Sherr&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeopaths

Delete, per Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability, even in the field in question. Perhaps more needs to be done to provide comprehensive information about the field (as the above extensive "argument" seems to be suggesting) but without better sources I can't see this article (person) meeting notability guidelines. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of independent and reliable sources that can attest to the subject's notability. WP:FRINGE and WP:GNG are more relevant than WP:PROF. In particular the sentence in WP:FRINGE that "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects" seems highly relevant in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 16 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaas Vantornout

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

Non notable athlete. Melanesian obsession (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first criterium of WP:ATHLETE: "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nomination by a sock of a perma-blocked vandal. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:04, 16 July 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 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Alexander-Riley

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

PROD-contested autobiographical article which may not meet notability indications per WP:BIO. elektrik SHOOS 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced vanity page. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as his career grows and the individual gets coverage. One role ever fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG [28][29]. This article is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 15 July 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 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Pontolillo

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. A student killed a man in self defense using a sword and wasn't prosecuted. I'm not even sure that the assertion that this lead to a change in self-defense laws is true, since the blog linked doesn't say anything of the sort. AniMate 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I remember seeing this story come across the news. I used to work less than a mile from where it happened, back when I lived in Baltimore. It was just some college kid whose apartment was getting broken into. He is not notable for anything other than this one isolated event. SnottyWong ^babble 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the article. The guy he killed was a career criminal burglar who had stolen his X-box, not an assassin. If the case actually caused laws to be changed, then its a notable one. I don't see any mention of that anywhere though, so I tagged that statement with a citation needed tag. Dream Focus 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Not a sufficiently notable person at this time to have a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yup, fails NOTNEWS, let alone BLP1E. If laws are changed as a result, then there might be reason to have an article on the event itself, but still not this person. Quantpole (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remember this story being in the news. This article was created on 13 July 2010 by Melanesian obsession (now blocked as a sock) apparently trying to make some sort of point about BLP1Es I guess. He was soon blocked by attacking articles worked on by another editor. Interestingly, anyone who wants to find out about this case with a vague memory of it can find it by googling "samurai killing" (2nd hit) (or "samurai intruder" or "samurai burglar", both a 1st hit). Clearly, this is a BLP1E situation, and although consensus is that we stay away from circulating such clearcut BLP1E stories, such stories will live on forever regardless.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:02, 20 July 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 - Nominator did not provide a rationale for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Multi-Mega

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sega Multi-Mega

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed malformed nomination. Nominated by Mjfan1 (talk · contribs), but no rationale provided. cab (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nomUSERPAGE HERE (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You ARE the nom; it doesn't mean anything for you to say "per nom". What is your reason for requesting this deletion? And please change your signature so that it shows your username. cab (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep huh seems real enuff Richmondian (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no reason given for nomination, variant of an extremely notable video game console. Someone another 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and WP:SNOW i'll assume good faith and hope this was done by mistakeWeaponbb7 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 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 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Luttman

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

Fails WP:PROF. There is no indication given in the article that would pass the notability criterion, and the subject only has an h-score of 5, based on Google scholar search. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. A fairly junior active young academic, PhD 2006, currently an Assistant Professor. Citability is not significant (in GoogleScholar and in MathSciNet). Nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly as above, but i just dont see the significance he has to pass WP:PROF maybe in a few years. But doesnt seem this way right now Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the above. Let me add that his WoS h-index is only 3. Possibly notable in the future, but not even close right now. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 16 July 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 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Sauder

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

Article about a skateboarder. No maintsteam media coverage. References list videos he's in. Also youtube videos and 2 links to skateboard websites. Open to if this he is notable or not. Mboverload (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even clear what the claim to notability is. Skateboarders are not inherently notable Vartanza (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah. I have no clue who this guy is, but he has no reason to be an article- there's no notability. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know who he is. All pro skateboarders are celebreties within the skateboarding world. Keegan Sauder lives in Vancouver, BC, Canada. If you ask a little kid who skateboards who lives in Idaho or New York City or France they will know who Keegan Sauder is. You probably never heard of Chrisian Hosoi, Tony Alva or Rick McCrank but inside the skateboarding world they're bigger than Jesus. Just like Grandmast Caz or Grandwizard Theodore are celebrities inside the early 80's hip hop world but to the average joe-six-pack these names mean nothing. If you google Keegan's name you'll find ads, magazine pictures, videos & image after image of Keegan Sauder, more than you could possibly click on. If you go into the 7-11 & pick up any skateboard magazine at random you will find a picture, interview, ad, or some mention of Keegan in any one of them. There's about a million famous things I've never heard of either.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keegan_Sauder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfromvan (talk • contribs) 05:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always a mistake to judge notability on the quality of a Wikipedia article. There's plenty of News coverage of Keegan Sauder, and the article already links to articles in Skateboarder mag and Thrasher magazine. See also ESPN, SBCSkateboard.com. Not in-depth coverage perhaps, but I think these demonstrate that the guy's notable in the world of skatebaording. As a professional sportsman I would have though that he would be deemed notable given that we allow articles on footballers and cricketers who may have only played once for a professional club.--Michig (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I've no doubt there are "a million famous things" the author "never heard of", but this is not one of them. Indeed we do need to know who he is, and being dismissive of others in such a debate will not win your cause.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.If you wanna find out more about Keegan Sauder just google his name & all kinds of links will pop up that you can click on as well as multiple images showing pictures of the same guy over & over. Also, you can just go to the local corner store & pick up any current skateboarding magazine & there will be some mention of him in either one you look at, regardless of the publication. If you wanna add some of the links to the article feel free. Keegan Sauder has just in the last couple of years become a household name in the skateboarding world & is now known to skateboarders all over North America & internationally. Wikipedia has articles on mucher lesser known people than Keegan Sauder. Like I said, people are only celebrities to people who are interested in the things the celebrities are known for. That's why there are people in India or China who won't know who Mickey Mouse or Elvis Presley are. Why? It doesn't relate to their world. There are people in North America who won't know most of the famous cricket players just like people in Greece, Italy, South Africa, or India won't know who Sidney Crosby is. Why? Cricket is not popular in North America & ice hockey is not popular in most warm tropical climates where people can't play it. This is how everything is. Even the most famous Hollywood movie stars' names mean nothing to many people in many parts of the world. If you research Keegan you will see he is well-known enough to be an article in Wikipedia. robfromvan 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfromvan (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Plenty of notability to justify an article: but where's the article? Hard to be enthusiastic about keeping something when there's almost nothing written in it, but I still think it should be kept (as a Stub or Start). SteveStrummer (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a professional athelete, and he does receive coverage such as this ESPN interview. Issues of article qualify are concerns for edittign and are not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted again as it's a BLP. —fetch·comms 01:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There's an ESPN interview, but if it's that major why isn't it in the article? There are a lot of sponsored athletes. They still need RS, and I'm not sure I see that here. Maybe a little more explanation or more than one source would be useful (youtube videos don't count). Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)q[reply]
Comment - This is a terrible article, whether the dude is worthy of inclusion or not. If it stays, it should be fixed. Carrite (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the fact that the article is in poor shape has no bearing on the notability of the subject and this AFD. Cleaning up articles is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 14 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brettle

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this person meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). {{notability|bio}} tag removed but no independent reliable sources with significant coverage have been added. Qwfp (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- User:whpq 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the criteria expressed as "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" seems to have been met Historyboy2010 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) — Historyboy2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- note: I have read the articles and they seem well researched and knowledgable Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That's strong conclusion to come to when the sources consist of the (1-4) Christian Mission Historical Association Archives which are not about him, but rather article written by him, and (5) election result statistics, and (6) a dance list that doesn't even have his name listed in it. What is needed is significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The person has clearly written historical material - is there a requirement that people should have written about him for him to appear on Wikipedia?Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - I have found an editorial from the Christian Mission Historical Association about Mr Brettle "Christian Mission Historical Association editorial". Retrieved 2010-07-11., does this count? Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - For me that is not coverage. It's simply thanking him, and others for helping answer queries. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as a writer, historian, or politician. I could find nothing at Google or Google Books except mirrors of this article. In reply to Historyboy, Mr. Brettle himself does not appear to have been the subject of any published secondary source material. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 01:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION - perhaps Mr Brettle is not notable in himself but his field of research does need something on wikipedia. Perhaps a generic page on Historians of the Salvation Army with an entry about Mr Brettle and other historians of that organisation. Historyboy2010 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question' - Is there coverage in reliable sources about historians of the salvation army? Each topic in Wikipedia needs to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article should be on the historical society, not its founder. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Do you have any evidence that the association is notable? And in any case, there is no material here that forms the basis of such an article except the statement that Mr. Brettle is a founder. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Does it exist? Yes: http://www.sacollectables.com/cmha/volume1/pages/editorial.htm Is it notable? I leave that to you. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't suggesting an article on the Christian Mission Historical Association I was suggesting an article on historians of the Salvation Army. In answer to Whpq - yes there are many contributors to Salvation Army history - Arch R Wiggins for one - and as Wikipedia is the place people turn to for information the inforamtion should be on Wikipedia. When I said "that organisation" I was not referring to the Christian Mission Historial Association, but referring to the Salvation Army. Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 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 deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Degrees of Separation

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

Largely a duplicate of the recently deleted Three Degrees of Separation Acquisition Strategy (see AfD here), this article suffers the same problems of original synthesis as the original. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a re-creation of previously deleted material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 14 July 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. RN 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Biotech

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this competition. Please note that most of the Google News archive hits are from the phrase "best of biotech", and only a few are brief mentions on the competition. —fetch·comms 00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please cite the appropriate guideline to argue for the deletion of this competition. If this article is deleted then all business plan competition articles need to be deleted. Coverage on google news cannot be taken as the sole way to confirm that a competition is not covered. Most of the coverage is in print magazines/newspapers and not necessarily online. The competition is covered in daily newspapers in Austria (Die Presse, Standard etc.) as well as in international biotech related magazines in Central Europe. (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.45.5 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the nomination many of the Google News hits are about this competition, and, as indicated above, some of these amount to substantial coverage in two of Austria's leading newspapers, Der Standard[30][31][32] und Die Presse[33][34]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, although I'm not too enthusiastic about this article. Der Standard has indeed covered it in several, albeit short and shallow, articles (I didn't check the Die Presse articles). On the other hand, the article states that total prize money of €170,000 has been awarded since 2000, which seems awfully small if correct, and more in keeping with the resources of a local science fair than a major international competition. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 21 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XTRIPx

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

I do not believe this meets the criteria for inclusion based on notability, as it appears to be an article on a band with no claim to notability, nothing but primary self-published sources, and no claim to critical or commercial success. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Unsourced "high risk" (band) article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 July 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) 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai Zetsumei: Dencharasuji Sansugoroku

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

The game was canceled. DimaG (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article title probably should have been "Zettai Zetsumei: Dangerous Jisan Sugoroku" instead. In any case, there is not enough notability to warrant a separate article from Grandpa Danger. According to Wikipedia Japan, there were several game spin-offs that weren't cancelled (ja:絶体絶命でんぢゃらすじーさん#ゲーム).--Bxj (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it can at least be verified, a redirect might be in order. Marasmusine (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been searching hard, but I cannot even verify it. Clearly it's misspelled to start off with, so it may even fall under Speedy-A1. --Bxj (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {でんぢゃらすじーさん +"GameCube"} turns up nothing, {でんぢゃらすじーさんすごろく}, {でんぢゃらすじーさん双六} turns up nothing. A GameCube version apparently has never been mentioned on the web. Even if it wasn't GameCube, a guess of what the game title may be turns up nothing either. --Bxj (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Bxj's findings. I could not find mention of this game on the Kids Station website, either. Marasmusine (talk) 18:06, 14 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HPV OncoTect

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

Subject notability is unclear but doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines; the article reads as an advertisement; the large majority of the article is background and redundant with other articles. – Clockwork Soul 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the article content that isn't already in human papillomavirus (or a related article) is limited to the "How does HPV OncoTect work?" section, which is less than 20% of the article. What's left appears to be taken from promotional material, and is either vague or written as an advertisement. – Clockwork Soul 00:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be well-referenced, and it doesn't appear to be redundant but instead it appears to serve the purpose of covering a specific topic. --Bxj (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any evidence that the test is notable The one good reference cited for it, 10.1309/FE70AVNY75TDDJUH, does not mention the term in the text. From pub med, it has been cited only 14 times since publication in 2005; were it important, I'd expect five times the number. There is no indication that it is an approved method in the US, let alone a standard. Looking at PubMed for the product name, I get zero hits, a pretty good proof that nobody is writing about it. The general method is elsewhere referred to by Patterson and others as "flow cytometry–fluorescence in situ hybridization" , "(flow–FISH)" , and that would be the title, not the trade name. In fact Flow-FISH get 66 hits in pub med, but almost none of them on cervical cancer, and I think it might be possible to write such an article, but it should be done from scratch,as the present article is entirely devoted to this specific non-notable application. In any case, the first 3/4 of the article is redundant and needs to be eliminated. It is a hallmark of promotional writing that it goes to a considerable degree into the importance of the general subject, which might be necessary in some context but is always unwanted here, since we will have an article on the general subject not targeted towards the particular product. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom (me). – Clockwork Soul 00:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG Old Al (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 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 The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford. T. Canens (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Centre for Collaborative Applied Mathematics

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

I had tagged this article for CSD on copyvio earlier this morning; the original author, while removing the CSD template and copyvio template, remedied the situation, so good on him. However, the notability of this organization is still at question from what I can tell - there is not much about this organization, which is appropriately acronym'd to OCCAM. That name alone gives it bonus "cool points" in my book, but that's also an WP:ILIKEIT argument to keep it, unfortunately. As such, I bring this here to AFD for discussion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I gather from the website that OCCAM is one of several divisions of The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford. It seems to me that what little material there is here could be merged with the other article. Perhaps the other article should be expanded to include the other divisions as well to avoid undue weight. (The other divisions are the Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Mathematical and Computational Finance Group, the Centre for Mathematical Biology, the Centre for Nonlinear PDE, and the Numerical Analysis Group.)--RDBury (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford. Subdivisions of institutes/departments usually do not get their own articles, and it does not appear that this one is independently notable. The article is too short (just two short sentences) for a formal merge to be justified here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have no immediate opinion whether the article should be kept or not, I'd like to point out that "Delete and redirect" is the worst of the various options. We can delete it, which is simple and only leaves the odd red link, or we can merge it to The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, which is a bit more work per RDBury, but a redirect without merge only serves to leave the reader who followed the link astonished and puzzled why they ended up on the target page. --Lambiam 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I don't think people would be that astonished by being redirected to to The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, I am fine with a plain "delete". The article, in its current form, is very short and there is very little verifiable information that may be lost if the article is deleted. The issues regarding various other divisions of the institute, how to mention them etc, can be discussed directly at Talk:The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford. A "merge" close for low-traffic source and target articles is likely to create a situation where nothing gets done for a long time, and the situation just gets stale. In my experience, merge discussions conducted directly at talk pages, even for more visible articles, tend to attract very little participation, drag on forever and often produce no result. Also, even if a merge is performed and a redirect is created, the redirect can easily be undone and the merged article restored (because the history log does not get deleted). I have seen this happen several times. Then another AfD is needed and people end up wasting even more of their time. Therefore, except for cases where the source article contains a significant amount of verifiable information that may otherwise be lost, I believe that "merge" as a formal outcome of an AfD discussion is something to be avoided. Nsk92 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is changed to a redirect page, wouldn't it be better to keep the history intact than to delete it? Or is there some policy or some reasons in precedent why that's a bad idea? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The history would be kept. I think that by "Delete and Redirect" the person probably means "Delete the contents and rewrite it as just a redirect". "Delete and Redirect" is probably not the clearest way to express this. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or remake as just a redirect, at the closer's discretion). I'm looking at their activities. The big deal is a couple of conferences they are holding: OCCAM Lattice Boltzmann Workshop and Future Challenges in Mathematical and Computational Neuroscience.I checked all chairs and presenters from institutions in anglophone countries. None of them have articles except Philip Holmes, and it looks doubtful that he should. (The non-anglophone-country presenters are even less likely to have articles, I assume.) Granted this is an esoteric field, but not that esoteric, so this is not a good trend. They don't publish a journal or anything (as far as I can tell), and they don't host conferences with academics notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so what do they do to be notable? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 21 July 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.

Conheça Walt Disney World