The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jayron32 05:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Octavio Carranza Torres

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Octavio Carranza Torres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Octavio Carranza Torres" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Very low number of citations in Google Scholar but some presence in a regular Google search. Author Co-editor of at least one book. Was awarded the "National Mexican Logistics Prize". However, he doesn't seem to be notable according to WP:PROF or under the general notability guideline. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. He does not seem to be author of a book, just mentioned in it. Does not seem to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

Thank you Xxanthippe. You are right. Changed it above to co-editor of a book (source). CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not endorse- Extranisimo-I would like to make some comments over Octavio Carranza Torres. He is certainly the author or co-author of two books (The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains and Logistics best practices in latinamerica)and is in the process of publishing two more, Operating from Mexico, and Supply Chain Performance Measurement Systems. If you check his book "Logística Mejores Practicas en latino America", you will see that 60% of it is authored by him, and this is because when you make a revision of practice in such a huge region of Latin America, it is practically impossible that one person can resume all the knowledge developed in that region. He is an authority in Logistics in Latinamerica because of many reasons. The first one, he generated the first compilation of Logistics for latin america. The second public university in Chile mentions him as the "main spanish speaking author", which can be checked at Universidad de Valparaiso or at his page (http://octavioacarranzatorres, testimonials). The mexican national logistics price is awarded by 11 institutions (including the local chapter of the CSCMP, the APICS, the main professional associations in Mexico). This price is certainly the main logistics price in latin America, and was declared vacant in his category for three years, which enhances the merit of the award. The second reason to be considered an authority in Latin America is that he created the first Benchmarking Logistics program addressed to companies. The third reason is that his prestige is such that he has promoted an MIT research center in Mexico, with the authorities of the state of Mexic, which is potentialy the main research center MIT will have outside from Boston. The relevance of his first book is related to the National Logistics award he won. When looking at Logistics in Latin America, the first book of such type -in spanish- for all the region, a book that can be looked at Google (Logistica Mejores Prácticas en latino América), and in the many university library that exist in the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extranisimo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Do not endorse-Logisticstudent-I have been a student that has used Logistics Best Practices in Latin America-The first thing I want to say is that there are many books that could be used as a text for a course in Logistics. This one made really a difference. It was not only the only book that presented Latin American cases, but that it was written in Latin America for Latin Americans. We enjoyed very much this book, and I believe that this only fact would justify having Octavio Carranza Torres in Wikipedia: Logistics has revolutionized the economy of many countries, and here we have a book that explains how this revolution can be materialized. I have a sincere appreciation for Dr Carranza´s work, because he was the first author that was widely used in my university -Tec de Monterrey-. I believe this book has been adopted by a myriad of other universities in Latin America, that go from Colombia -EAFIT- to Chile, Argentina -IUA-, Perú and Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logisticstudent (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Leave or modify this article-Intelectual2-I believe the perspective that Cronopioflotante takes is too wide: WP:Proof is not a complete measure of the relevancy of somebody in a discipline or even a region. I believe also that only looking at this article from an academic perspective, is a narrow focus. And I would like to give two examples: DHL in MExico -contact luis.erana@dhl.com who is its general director- uses the book abovementioned -Logistica Mejores Prácticas en Latino América- as the head manual for any new trainees in the company. This means that there is no other book that serves as well for this purpose. Logistica Mejores Practicas en Latino America is undoubtedly a classic in Logistics for many practitioners, and Google won´t probably reflect this. The relevancy of this work can be looked at from the fact that no other work existed in this field previously (the opinion of relevant experts is very important in this matter, look for example at www.iese.edu, which hosts the first MBA of the world, according to The Economist). A second reason why the activity of this person should be considered as relevant is the position of Mexico in the WOrld, and its logistics oriented situation. Octavio Carranza is a reference for Logistics in Mexico, and by the way, his work remains a reference for anybody who wants to look at logistics in Latin America, or Mexico, which could be termed one of the main logistics poles of the world (see for more information the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals that this author wrote over Mexico).

• Delete. The article is very badly written and formatted, badly sourced, and suffers somewhat from crystal ball-ism: it has too much about what Carranza is going to do when it should only be about what he has done. And some of the article text is copied and pasted from Carranza's web page (or vice versa, I suppose). Despite all that I was prepared to look through the article and try to find some notability in it. The only thing I see, really, that could save the article is the subject's award, the 2005 Premio Nacional de Logística. But, though I found a few web pages that mention it, in Google News I could find only two articles from a Chilean university that mention him only briefly in connection with a seminar that he visited. I have to conclude that, with no Spanish-language press on the award, it is not an especially notable one. Without that, and without other evidence of passing WP:PROF, I don't see why we should keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has not been made manifest as required. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

intelectual2-This is a comment for David Epstein-I have recomended to rewrite the article,so I agree with you in that it is somehow poorly writen -even though the article in itself does not say nothing about what Octavio Carranza is going to do-, but there are two issues that should be stressed 1-You can check his web page -since you are comparing the article with what this web-page says- to see that in Testimonials that there is an express mention about his prestige in spanish speaking countries (the most well-known author in spanish speaking countries, "el autor más importante en Logística en lengua hispana"). To check this information you should address this information, probably the director of its industrial engineering career, Esteban Sefair, esefair@yahoo.com.ar. I certainly know about this announce because it was a matter of discussion in many universities which I advise. 2-As regards your comments about no Spanish-language press on the award. You can check http://www.premiologistica.com.mx/jurado.php, to see who evaluates this price. There are two of the main latin american journals in logistics, but I would add, God save us from having our intelectuals and practitioners being evaluated by the interests of (spanish speaking) press! I would make a simple question, while listing the members of this jury, Could any editor ever replace the quality of this associations?

Representantes de las siguientes Secretarías de Estado: Secretaría de Economía Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Asociaciones en el ramo o sector de la Logística: Asociación de Ejecutivos de Logística, Distribución y Tráfico, ASELDYT Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) Capítulo México Asociación para la Administración de Operaciones (APICS) Capítulo México Asociación Mexicana de Transporte Intermodal (AMTI) Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos en Comercio Exterior (IMECE) Organismos Empresariales Cúpula: Confederación Nacional de Cámaras Industriales de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (CONCAMIN). Confederación de Cámaras Nacionales de Comercio, Servicios y Turismo de la República Mexicana (CONCANACO). Instituciones Educativas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Universidad Anáhuac México Sur Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria de Ingeniería y Ciencias Sociales y Administrativas (UPIICSA) del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) Instituciones y organizaciones difusoras de la logística EXPOLOGÍSTICAM.R. Revista Énfasis Logística Revista T21 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)+

• Delete, rather clearly fails PROF with a minimal citation record and no other evidence of significant impact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kittens At Play

Kittens At Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kittens At Play" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested ProD. Prod summary added by Excirial was

• Speedy delete (A7) as there is not even a claim to notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BAND. Crafty (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It fails WP:BAND and no sign of notability. Basket of Puppies 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Non-admin closure) by Intelligentsium.

[edit] Lount

Lount (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lount" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not notable. Small village with a population of 50. Only two claims of notability: 1) a murder took place there in the 18th century, and b) it's linked to a specific estate. (Oh, and the author of the article was born and raised there - I guess that's a claim of notability). Singularity42 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Aren't geographical places notable? Now granted, it's a small town, but I thought the consensus was for places to be automatically notable. Is there a minimum size defined somewhere? Bfigura ^(talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I never came across a guideline for towns/villages. I'm not sure if it's possible to make a population number cut-off. For example, would 50 be a problem, but 51 be okay? At the end of the day, WP:N applies. If there is a more notable location this village is associtaed with (such as Staunton Harold, then I would withdraw my nomination in favour of a merge. Singularity42 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is there a guideline on how big a place has to be in order to be automatically notable? Generally, it seems that we set the bar quite low on locations, so long as they appear on a map, but maybe 50 is pushing it a bit. Nearby Staunton Harold is only 113 people but it is an official parish and has census data, which Lount doesn't. I guess I am leaning towards a recommendation of "weak delete" or "merge" to the nearest location which does deserve an article, probably Staunton Harold if it falls within the parish. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: A village. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep since it is indeed impractical to make a population cut off, we have adopted the practice of considering all distinct inhabited places as notable. They merely have to be verifiable as a village, not for example a house that happens to be named on a map. I wish very much we had such simple and effective guidelines for other topics. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I had no idea there was that consensus when I made this nomination. If that consensus already exists, though, then obviously I would withdraw my nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - I'm not withdrawing my nomination at this time. What I meant is that if someone can point me to a consensus somewhere that indicates that a village, not matter how small, is automatically given its own article, then I would withdraw my nomination. Until then, I still think the general requirements of WP:N should apply. Singularity42 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no official policy or guideline stating that, but WP:OUTCOMES#Places and WP:Notability (geography) indicate that it's standard practice. --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - All Municipalities recognized by governments, atlases or other significant documents are inherently notable. WP:5P clearly states that, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." hence using this core policy because municipalities are one of the core topics of Wikipedia and Encyclopedias in general such articles, like this are notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a village then it is notable as per normal practice as the article for rolling up other topics on the locality that are not notable enough for their own article. Keith D (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Inherent notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Keith D. It just needs expanding to include both historical and contemporary information. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's notable, because it is a village. It has been in existence for hundreds of years and, although there are not a lot of reliable sources for it, that is mainly because a lot of sources we use at Wikipedia are on the Internet and the best place for sources on villages is indeed an atlas or government listing such as censuses, surveys etc. Because Lount is a part of these, it has notability. Please do not think that notability can only be established by books and websites. Jolly Ω Janner 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination - I'm convinced! I find Jolly Janner's point especially convincing - a small village will naturally not have a lot of internet information, but may still have a history found off-line. Singularity42 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-10 NBA matches

2009-10 NBA matches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2009-10 NBA matches" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

mainly because WP:NOT#STATS as Wikipedia is not a place for excessive statistics. I also question the notability of the article as it documents ordinary NBA games.—Chris!_c/t 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not an article, nor useful since the same info can be found in many places -- including newspaper websites and the NBA's own website. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment From a notability standpoint, I don't think this level of detail is "excessive". Some statistics are OK. However, I'm not sure an article like this is a practical endeavor at this time. We already have the game logs, and it's hard enough to keep those updated. I wouldn't bother with an article like this unless we had three or four times the amount of people regularly working on NBA articles. Otherwise, it's just a drain on our resources. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I am in agreement with the nominator that this does represent a violation of not as a set of detailed statistics. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete 30 teams, 82 games per team-- there are 1230 regular season games alone, not to mention the playoffs. Tempting as it is to track the results of every game on a Wikipedia article rather than on a website that one can't edit, the rules of WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#NEWS are right on point here. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Newspapers and the NBA pay people to process this information, no reason for WP editors to do it for free. We should have better things to do. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. You know, having some sort of repository for stats from every game, every sport, going back as many seasons as possible, would be an interesting project. But this doesn't mean it's a good encyclopedia article. Notable matches, season series, and events can be added to 2009–10 NBA season in the usual way. Kudos to Hhoshy 90 for taking on such a daunting task, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Goodnight Dream

The Goodnight Dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Goodnight Dream" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:BAND. Anon editor removed PROD tag without any additional contributions. Singularity42 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Getting some downloads on Purevolume does not establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tried a search of Google News archives, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Could not find anything to verify the information or establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Spike

Baby Spike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Baby Spike" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can't find any reliable sources on this. Is it notable? The only source it cites (and apparently stems from) is a character's hairstyle in The Incredibles (film). A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a NN hairstyle. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, can find no references for this per WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as a hairstyle, it lacks any sort of coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete People were spiking their hair to various degrees long before The Incredibles came out. Mandsford (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Already redirected. --Tone 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Foster Comprehensive School

John Foster Comprehensive School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "John Foster Comprehensive School" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article is a complete farce. It has no relevance to the Waterloo Road programme to cite its own article and is factually incorrect. Harleyamber (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As you have said Harleyamber, the article is totally wrong. On Waterloo Road, the school has been merged so John Fosters does not exist. It certainly does not require its own article and just by looking at the article says it all - the information in it is a joke. Above anything it implies that all the Waterloo Road teachers now teach at John Fosters. D.E.L.E.T.E! 92.20.222.142 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Without any references to verify it we can't tell if it is correct or not. It is not linked from the Waterloo Road article or it's template. Looking at that template, I was surprised to see so many articles for a pretty minor soap and, while none of those strike me as egregious, this one is a step too far. If this school was only introduced to the plot in order to get merged then there can't be much to say about it. It doesn't need an article. There are unlikely to be any reliable sources to reference it from. Three Google hits and two of them are us! --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is somewhere to merge to, as a major setting in an extremely important series. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You have got to be joking DGG - a major setting??? John Fosters school was never seen, its just been merged with Waterloo Road. The article is utterly false too. It suggests that John Fosters is still open and that the entire teaching staff of Waterloo Road work there, which they dont. There is already a mention of it in the Waterloo Road Comprehensive article and that should be enough - certainly not an entire article that has no fact mentioned within. Harleyamber (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree tjhat the article should be deleted. The Waterloo Road Comp article already mentions the merge with John Fosters, it does not require a whole article to itself. And on reading the it all I can say is - what? John Fosters was also a private school, not a comp Newtree21 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Waterloo Road (TV series), assuming that there's something here that isn't already there. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is already a section on the merge of John Fosters in the Waterloo Road Comprehensive article and a mention of it in the Series 5 section of Waterloo Road (TV series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleyamber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bianca Zahrai

Bianca Zahrai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bianca Zahrai" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Most of this article repeats the existing article about Iranian.com. This lady has just joined as its business manager, but that does not make her notable, and I do not see evidence that she is notable in her own right; most of the references are from Iranian.com, as far as I can see none of them mentions her, and what I see on Google is mostly LinkedIn, Facebook, Naymz etc MuffledThud (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no cverage in reliable sources about this person, and the article lede is a copyvio from here. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see independent coverage. (It's odd that the Iranian.com link Whpq gives refers to her as "Bianca Zahrai, Esq.") JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, the suffix of "Esquire" in the USA generally denotes a practising lawyer. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Two nations divided by a common language." This side of the pond it's an almost obsolete formal way of addressing (e.g.on an envelope) a man. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I'm Canadian, and and don't really see that term used often. Whenever I do, invariably it's read in my mind with Alex Winter's voice and character from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - My resume is as impressive as hers and I certainly don't deserve a page. Pdcook (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Keller

Mitchell Keller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mitchell Keller" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No references (and with Google I wasn't able to find any independent reliable sources either, only self-published ones like press releases), obvious conflict of interest, article has already been deleted previously three times (on 12 December 2008, 7 February 2008 and 1 April 2007). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Can't find any reliable sources that discuss him. All the significant coverage seems to be self published. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V - I can't find anything that would support hsi inclusion in the encyclopedia. Article has POV issues. Maybe COI as well? Crafty (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Severns Valley Baptist Church

Severns Valley Baptist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Severns Valley Baptist Church" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable church which seems pretty local. WP:CHURCH is not an actual notability guideline, marked as historical/no consensus attained, which points us back to WP:GNG. Nothing significant about this church, and it lacks notable reliable source coverage as evidenced by web and GNews archive searches. JamieS93 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, folks: I forgot Google Books, one of the most obvious search engines. It's been a while since I've done this AFD/notability stuff. Withdrawing and closing. JamieS93 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Can't find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the church. Nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I must have been to quick and not looked at the book search, my fault. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. SnottyWong talk 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG and lacks significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Joe Chill's find. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Local church is local. And lacks notability. Crafty (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) changing to Keep Crafty (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Per this Google Book search. Joe Chill (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Joe Chill. "Oldest Baptist church in Kentucky" does it for me.[1][2][3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) (oops! my apologies for forgetting to sign--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Keep - blame Joe Chill. Crafty (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as it turns out the church was historically important, which is what the references show. Given that the gbooks search was right there in the line under the article title above, I really wonder about the people who said "cant find reliable sources". The nom may not have searched, because those links don't appear until the AfD is actually added, but the people who commented delete apparently never even tried to look, though they said that they did. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reproach D. We now consider ourselves well and truly told. Crafty (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Lyons (literary agent)

Jennifer Lyons (literary agent) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jennifer Lyons (literary agent)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article is an autobiography of a non-notable person. Any notability is by association only. No significant coverage to be found in Google web or news searches. Reference provided verify facts about other people, not about Lyons herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete NN Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The claims to notability all revolve around other people. She does not appear to be notable in her own right. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment since I'm conflicted. Notability shouldn't be inherited, but aren't agents typically judged by their clients? (However, this may be a moot point if no reliable sources discuss her -- in which case, the Nobel Prize-winning clients don't mean much). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is never about merit really, and I'm not even sure noble prize winners are inherently "good" , being noted for mediocrity or being noted for being the most obscure agent would meet notability guidelines. See comments on talk apge. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Claims of notability through her clients do not make her notable, and claims are vague at best anyways. Beach drifter (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned on the "Talk" page, I have looked at several other entries for agents and agencies that have been accepted for inclusion (i.e., Christopher Little, Barbara Bauer, United Agents, Abrams Artists Agency, Eulama, Conville and Walsh, Wendy Keller, Terry W. Burns, etc.), and am not sure how these entries differ fundamentally from ours. In addition, there are several talent agencies of various specialties that are each allowed an entry. If someone could provide more concrete editorial advise so that Ms. Lyons may too join this community of agents and representatives with a Wikipedia presence, it would be greatly appreciated. I respect this site very much and never intended for things to become so involved. (FYI: I am the sole user of this Login representing Ms. Lyons.) Thank you for your time, patience, and assistance. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeLyons (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a reason to keep this particular bad article. Also, several of the articles mentioned by JeLyons are actually quite a bit better, as significant third party coverage exists for those agents, which cannot be said for Ms. Lyons. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see my response on talk page. You need to distinguish an encyclopedia from an advertising medium. Clearly the hope is to make information more accessible to others but the idea is to only parrot what others have found notable and of something approaching archival value. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Todd and Penguin

Todd and Penguin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Todd and Penguin" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can find no evidence that this webcomic has received any coverage from independent reliable sources. As far as I can tell the bulk of the article is original research (The Themes and character interactions and Evolution sections) and the rest is effectively a plot only description. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states that "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers" and topics should be treated in an "encyclopedic manner" - without any third party coverage this will not be possible. The general notability guideline gives significant coverage by reliable sources as the criterion for a topic to warrant an independent article whilst the specific guideline for web content states that "primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" - this topic appears to fail on both counts. Guest9999 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto, nothing is turning up in a Google search. Warrah (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of any independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Jungle Book characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chil

Chil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Chil" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

In my opinion, a pretty clear case of a character that is too minor to warrant a standalone article. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As per the above --President of Internets (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of The Jungle Book characters, which is the best alternative to deletion. This is a plausible target. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to List of The Jungle Book characters. Edward321 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Moot. This content was deleted by User:Jesse Viviano under CSD G10 partway through the AfD. NAC closure for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fag enabler

Fag enabler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fag enabler" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Westboro does use the term, but I don't see that it in itself has any notability beyond WBC. Can't find any sources discussing the importance of the phrase itself - the only references I find are in relation to WBC's campaign. Even so, it's only one of dozens of phrases WBC uses, so it doesn't seem that this phrase has specific independent notability. I'm also concerned with the BLP issue. NellieBly (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to WBC, or maybe merge with a homophobia-related article. As a standalone article, this is fail on a stick. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete criterion G10 (tagged). Seriously. It's an offensive term and the content is a list of people who are alleged to be described by it. Imagine if the content of Nigger or Jap was a list of people. Guest9999 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy G10 - for future reference, RFD, not AFD, handles improper redirects. Intelligentsium 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The page wasn't a redirect at the time the article was nominated ([4]). Guest9999 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was originally a redirect, but since it had been expanded into an article I wasn't sure if RFD was the appropriate place to take it. --NellieBly (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Velayas

Kelly Velayas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kelly Velayas" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable author. Article does list two published books, but the publisher, Llumina Press, "provides personalized self-publishing services", negating a claim to notability by being a published author. Without that claim, there is nothing to support a claim to notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA. Notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While self-published works could in rare circumstances be notable, there's no sign this author is one of those exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Analyx

Analyx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Analyx" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created twice by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Analyx consulting. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 previously.

• This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Analyx_sp._z_o.o._sp._k._.28II.29

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Nothing more than Self-promotion and advertismentt, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. I am finding it hard to see a clear assertion of notability here anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Insufficient coverage to document notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of band theme songs

List of band theme songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of band theme songs" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

How has this stayed for all these years? The list is highly objectionable, and no sources are cited. A classic case of WP:OR. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - so place a tag on it requesting sources. The list is easy to define. Is it the band's theme song? Yes or no. There's no ambiguity. Kingturtle (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But what defines a "theme song?" I don't see any resemblance of a theme (of the band) in "Whiplash" by Metallica, "Helena" by My Chemical Romance, and "Droppin' Plates" by Disturbed to name a few. Most of the songs are just a title of the band, or very close to the title of the band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The examples you provide should be removed from the list. Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Notable as founding member of 3 Inches of Blood. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC) My mistake, entered in error. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been many weeks now. Shall we leave the article be? Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep for now. Change to Delete as entirely OR. No verifiable claims of a notable topic. Add tags for context and sources because I don't know what defines a band's theme song, either. Can revisit if no improvement. An administrator needs to fix this though. This was nominated on September 24 but was added to an archived AFD discussion for September 9. There's a second AFD by the same nominator as well added a few days later. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 9 --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Relister's comment: This discussion was improperly placed on the September 9 log rather then the 24th, so I have relisted so it can be viewed by more editors. --JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Stale article from Wikipedia's days when they would take anything. Not just original research, but very badly done original research. When I saw the title, I thought it was about the "Big Bands" from pre-rock 'n roll days, and those bands actually did have their own signature tunes. This appears to be a list of self-referencing songs, where a band has cut a (generally) obscure song that mentions the band's name. "One hit wonders" might have a song that they're obligated to perform 40 years later at the county fair, but most bands are too cool to play a "theme song" about themselves in a concert. The fact that most of these aren't blue links ought to be a clue. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stale is not a legitimate criteria for deletion. And who are this they that you speak of? And no, they (whoever they are) didn't "take anything." Kingturtle (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but unsourced, badly done original research is a criterion, and this is from bygone days when mentioning where you got the information was optional. I wish I had been on Wikipedia in 2004, when people didn't take it seriously, and there were lots of creative articles, and it was more fun. By the time I came around in 2007, "they" had built up "their" article base and "they" put in a deletion forum to start questioning what used to get taken for granted. I got slapped down the first time I ever had a creative idea for an article; if I'd posted it a few years sooner, it would probably be up still yet. Now, Wikipedia is the first place anyone looks for information, it worries more about the reliable and verfiable thing than it used to, and it's not as freewheeling as it was five years ago. In both cases, whether we're talking about 2004 or 2009, "they" refers to the Wikipedia communitiy in general. For better or worse, "They don't make 'em like they used to". Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then give the article a citation tag and give it time to be updated properly. There is no need to delete it when simple hard work can improve it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm of two minds. On the one hand if there was an article on Band theme songs this would seem like a reasonable complement to it (assuming only notable, reliably sourced entries were included). However there isn't and despite the fact I would have imagined band theme songs to be a reasonably established concept I cannot find any sources that could be practically used to support such an article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Surely there's some cleanup to be done, and indeed some excision for dubious entries (Why is "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" Cake's "anthem"? Or "Where the Streets Have No Name" for U2? "Dance Dance" for Fall Out Boy?). But this isn't outright original research, as there is ample material out there on self-identifying songs. Chubbles (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is really based on people's subjective opinions. The term "theme song" is also not defined in this context so we can tell if these are really theme songs of the bands listed. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete How do we define "theme songs"? Just because a source is found doesn't make it one (conflicting sources and all). Rather than have a giant list of opinions, delete the poorly defined list. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as subjective waffle on a bunch of B-listers. I agree with Northwestgnome, the lack of definitions, sources and objectivity means it's hard to see why this should stay. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, also per WP:V as there isn't a citation in the list. Also per Mandsford's assessment of our growing reliability and the inherant subjectivity of what constitutes a theme song. ThemFromSpace 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. While I understand this concept as applied to, say, "(Theme from) The Monkees", I would prefer to see some kind of sourcing to establish that this concept has been recognized outside Wikipedia, to avoid original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am recommending a delete due to the continuing problem of original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What exactly is the "continuing problem"? The "problem" has only just been raised. Shouldn't you give the article some time to respond to the request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to violate WP:OR, until some sources are added backing up the article's claims. With so many supposed theme songs I should think there would be at least a few references given. Assuming sources exist stating that certain bands have "theme songs" it would be better to recreate this article from scratch and document those claims. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then tag it with a request for Citations rather than deleting the entire thing. Kingturtle (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a userfy. I recognize that you started this as a straightforward list of self-referencing songs, and somewhere along the way it was edited to refer to these as "theme songs", which some persons would consider as a famous song that typifies a band (hence someone's addition of Where the Streets Have No Name for U-2). I recall something like that in The Book of Rock Lists (Simon & Schuster, 1994). It can be an encyclopedic topic; there are some very well-known songs that were recorded when a band plateaued out on their climb to fame. An example is the Beatles' Glass Onion (the Ballad of John and Yoko would be an alternative). Another is Cover of the Rolling Stone. It isn't always obvious-- I didn't know that the Creeque Alley was the name of the Mamas and the Papas song that has the refrain "and nobody's getting fat except Mama Cass". But speaking of fat, there's plenty that can be trimmed from this list. I'd volunteer to assist in straightening this up. Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR. There's no real way to define a band's "theme song". I also agree that it is hard to see why this should stay. talkingbirds 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, but there *is* a real way to define it. Just use published lists and definitions. It isn't our responsibility to define it. It is only our responsibility to find the sources. Kingturtle (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • But if the sources cannot be found in the first place, then we can't verify anything on the list. If we can find sources that can verify some/all of these theme songs, then I would love to keep this list. talkingbirds 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If sources cannot be found, the challenged material can be removed, which could result in a blank article. The creator of the article (or some other interested party) should really add some sources as soon as possible to make this list worth saving at all. It's an interesting list but requires defining, such as what is the difference between a theme song and a signature song? A little more context would be helpful. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Under what basis are either of you supporting your claim that "If sources cannot be found"? No one has even started looking for sources yet. Kingturtle (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So you created an article without having any sources to go by and that you don't know even exist and expect them to magically appear through other wikipedians research? This just screams OR then. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the article because some bands have theme songs. And the topic is of interest to some people. Sources were not part of the puzzle at the time. Now they are. It is quite simple to find sources. So why not just tag the article with a request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is quite simple to find sources." And yet in 5½ years, you haven't come up with one? --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't been asked. That's what the Citation tags do...they ask :) Kingturtle (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you've been aware of a citation issue since September 24 when this was added to the AFD discussion. I haven't done well finding any sources online, so please, as someone who wants to save this article, add even one or two. It's quite simple, right? --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy with many things and haven't had time to find sources. What they Citation tag does is gives the article some time to get up to par. I won't necessarily be able to dig up citations this week (I'm in the midst of a PhD process), but I know during some breaks (like Thanksgiving and Xmas) I will have that sort of time. Kingturtle (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest making a copy of this article in your userspace and, when you have the time to look for sources, edit that copy. Assuming this article is deleted you can then recreate the article with enough citation to satisfy notability and verifiability. Adding a citation tag to the article would have been good, but since it is up for deletion I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a few sources to demonstrate that the article isn't original research. I think most editors that see an article that makes this many claims and has no resources listed will consider it original research. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my experience that editors who encounter articles without sources place a tag atop the article requesting citations. That's the AGF way to proceed. Kingturtle (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep My initial objection was, in retrospect, over nothing more than the name of the article, which is not a very good reason for deleting it. I think many of us who have said "delete" have had the initial reaction: (a) This says it is about "theme songs" (b) This was not what I was expecting and (c) This cannot be fixed. Since theme song is an ambiguous term, and since many of us tend to associate that term with the opening music of a television show (i.e., "Boss of Me" being the theme for "Malcolm in the Middle"), a more appropriate name should be affixed to it. The common thread in the delete !votes is the lack of a definition of the word used in the title of the article, and I'm not in favor of deleting an article for its title-- nor, for that matter, for keeping a bad title at the expense of losing what can be a good article. Scrap the title, edit and source the content. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem isn't just the name, rather the whole idea. The content is a list of songs "which identifies the band's key sound and image, as well as describing itself". I simply don't see a way to generate that list while sticking within NOR and V. Even if every item was sourced, we would essentially have a sprawling unending list composed of varied opinions from a range of music critics as tho what songs best identified a band's sound and image. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)--Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR. Reywas92^Talk 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question What is the difference between original research and lack of citations? Kingturtle (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been a Wikipedian longer than I, so I'm taking this as a rhetorical question. I guess my answer would be that if there are no citations, there tends to be a presumption that it's original research -- i.e., a fact is drawn from one's own memory or judgment, rather than from a source that one can point to. I agree that what some would call O.R. is what others would call "common sense", for example "Hey hey, we're the Monkees!" would be an opening line one would expect to have been intended as a self-reference by The Monkees. My feeling is that the article, as you originally intended it, was to start a list of those type of songs. Back in 2005, it wasn't uncommon to start a list and to add the invitation for others to contribute to it; and, as part of the encouragement to others, to not remove someone else's addition. For better or for worse, the trend now is toward making articles cite their sources, or at least get a start on it. My observations are that (1) There are, indeed, deletionists who live for the thrill of nominating an article the moment it gets posted, or to root out a long standing article; (2) There are, indeed, inclusionists who will fight to keep an article that is sourced, or that can be (put another way, they live for the thrill of rescuing an article); and (3) That some articles can't be fixed immediately (we all live in the real world and our spare time is limited), and when that's the case, it's better to move the topic to user space so that some fixes can be made. Everybody here, whether we call them a deletionist, inclusionist or neutral, has a goal of improving Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My question actually is not rhetorical. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have been tagged by users with {{Unreferenced}}, allowing time for the article to come up to par. I honestly don't understand why that solution doesn't apply to this case. Kingturtle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It may well be that people are skeptical that a reference tag will lead to any action, particularly with a list article. Using the ctrl + F to search how many of those tagged articles are lists, the count was 36 of the first 5,000 and 73 of the next 5,000. I'd prefer to see it userfied and worked on, then to take the chance that it won't be deleted. I'm not sure how much longer we have until an administrator makes that decision. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfy to Kingturtle's userspace. Since the creating editor states the citations can be improved and more time is needed I see no problem with sending the list to userspace in the hope it will be improved and recreated in the mainspace. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jason DeRulo. Merge to Jason DeRulo is there is anything useful. Till then, redirect. Tone 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jason DeRulo (album)

Jason DeRulo (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jason DeRulo (album)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested Prod - Par WP:CRYSTAL Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Should not be deleted. Information was confirmed and can be changed/added to in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.39.11 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete! Info Confirmed and added and more info will be added in the future as the release date comes closer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthersrock16 (talk • contribs)
• Merge to Jason DeRulo I've added one supporting ref from Reuters, so not such a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL which allows for notable works to be described before their release. See also Category:2010 albums. MuffledThud (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge anything worthwhile to the article about the artist. Enigma^msg 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvagable to Jason DeRulo. It's too soon for the album right now, and not enough information is available right now to warrant an article. talkingbirds 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Webdental

Webdental (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Webdental" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Marginal company that asserts no notability. Refs are from a PR wire and a link farm. Little more than advertising. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - As a website that fails to meet Wikipedia's reuirements for reliable third party sources, as of yet, fails to meet the general notability guideline and the criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - this is not an article, but spam for an online dental community. Please. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stack n Rack, Inc

Stack n Rack, Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Stack n Rack, Inc" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested PROD - A search revealed no real indication of notability - also borderline advertising Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've removed the history section as a copyright violation as it was copied from the company web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that the article does contain one source [5] which is not sufficient to establish the notability of the company. Additionally, the article is entirely promotional. As noted above, some copied material has been removed. And note that the single referenced source identifies an employee as "Lacy Youngblood" which is also the name of the article creator. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Too many concerns to keep, including WP:CORP and WP:COI. I can ignore COI if the article is well-sourced and neutral, but WP:CORP needs to be met as well, and it ain't. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fabrika Yfanet(Thessaloniki)

Fabrika Yfanet(Thessaloniki) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fabrika Yfanet(Thessaloniki)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested prod. Par WP:ESSAY and WP:OPINION Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article is entirely opinion. I have no idea if the factory and the events are notable, but if they were, this article would still need to be rewritten from scratch. As such, it is irredeemable and should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - for washing their dirty laundry, in public with WP:SOAP and for speaking borderline WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find a speedy criteria that fits properly, which is the only reason the article remains. A description of the site would be acceptable, if sourced - but this is just an essay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David R. Hekman

David R. Hekman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "David R. Hekman" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I'll be happier once this article is run through AfD. The most one can say about this assistant professor's h-index is that it is non-zero. Article seems like a vanity page to me, with photo. Article claims his work on pay disparity has been been mentioned quite a bit in the media. Is it enough to pass WP:PROF? Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[1] He is also the lead author on a paper that has been featured in many of the most notable media outlets including The New York Times,^[2] The Washington Post,^[3] The Boston Globe,^[4] The Globe and Mail ^[5] and National Public Radio.^[6] This is quite rare for his field (business management), as most full or chaired business professors have not had their work featured in these outlets. Hekman has also had a different academic article of his featured on This American Life. ^[7] diversity23 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.193.244 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — 68.248.193.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] References

• Weak delete - I dislike the h-index, but prefer Google scholar, which shows only 8 Ghits, so in any case, I see little evidence of notability under WP:PROF, at least as of now. Also: not a full professor yet; not a department chairperson yet; no major awards yet, etc. FWIW, even I have citations in the popular press. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep But under the general guidelines, not WP:PROF. Like almost all assistant professors, not yet notable as an academic under WP:PROF. But it is necessary to actually look at the citation record, not just count. Using the proper citation index, Scopus, which finds 4 papers, all in good journals, citations 5, 0, 0, 0. But this is not quite what it seems, for the 1 with 5 citations was his doctoral work, published in 06, and the other 3 only in 09, so they cannot be expected to have published citations yet. The work reported by the papers is none of these, but a paper that is still in press "Hekman, D.R., Aquino, K.A., Owens, B., Mitchell, T.R., Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., (in press) “An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal. This paper has apparently attracted attention in the newspapers, as is not unusual for a paper on "hot-button" topics. The newspaper attention is significant, and makes him notable. It may or may not attract academic attention. the article needs some rewriting, and I started in on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

and FWIW, publishing 4 articles , though a little more than the average faculty member does in most subjects, is not enough to make faculty notable as such. It depends on the articles, and in the academic world their influence and their impact on the profession is measured by citations. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article claims notability. Research gives the appearance of notability for the author for the one paper. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As DGG has correctly argued above, he does not satisfy WP:PROF. The only claim to notability seems to be the media attention on "An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction" where he is one of the five authors. It does look like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. CronopioFlotante (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete He obviously fails PROF. Is it sufficient under GNG that his paper has been discussed in a couple of newspapers? I think that requires setting the bar rather too low. If it is kept, further cleanup will be needed to resolve issues of self-published. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. He doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF yet but the media attention to more than one of his studies is enough for WP:GNG, I think. In response to CronopioFlotante: if it were only the one study, it would be a case of BIO1E, but the American Life piece is about a different one, I think. As for "one of five authors", the NYT article calls him the lead author. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors suggests that he is the lead author. Fixed my statement above. On the other hand, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors in the article that appears in American Life suggests that he is not a lead author of that work (he is listed third). Also, it is not him who is interviewed but Will Felps (presumably the lead author of the paper). CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It has been well established above that WP:Prof notability is not met. The subject's work on hot issues in social anthropology has garnered a few newspaper articles, not uncommon for that topic of popular interest. However a much more substantial record is needed for notability. For a researcher who publishes in the scholarly literature many hundred of citations to dozens of refereed papers are usually needed for notability. I am unwilling to accept that one article in a newspaper is somehow equivalent to a hundred citations in the refereed literature although I am not able to say what sort of equivalence can be established. The article has been created too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. Xxanthippe makes a well-reasoned argument. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

• Follow-up. Are the first two opinions at the top from the same person? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

• Question - The field of business is quite new (the top journal, Academy of Management Journal, is only 52 years old), and the initial couple decades of research in the field done by business gurus can hardly be considered research. The WP:PROF guidelines basically exclude faculty from new fields because the fields are small (which means low citation counts), the pioneer faculty were typically not researchers (e.g. business gurus), and the best work in the field is the most recent work. Should Wikipedia include faculty from new academic fields? Diversity23 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• 52 years is pretty old for a journal. Still, I understand the point of your argument; the early work in developing fields is done outside of traditional academia. However, all this means is that it is typically documented in books, not journals. Google Books searching will uncover these sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP: Per diversity - Ret.Prof (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dead in the Family (Novel)

Dead in the Family (Novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dead in the Family (Novel)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested PROD - par WP:PLOT and WP:CRYSTAL Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. My searches show that WP:CRYSTAL isn't an issue. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is for an unreleased book that consists only of plot. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above. If sources show that the book (upon its release) is notable, then an article may be appropriate - but this is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also editorially redirecting to Dore.  Sandstein  15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Dore

Battle of Dore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Battle of Dore" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete: The slim evidence of the events at Dore does not support a historical "Battle of Dore". The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 827 Egbert of Wessex led an army to Dore to receive the submission of Eanred of Northumbria. ("827... This year was the moon eclipsed, on mid-winter's mass-night; and King Egbert, in the course of the same year, conquered the Mercian kingdom, and all that is south of the Humber, being the eighth king who was sovereign of all the British dominions... This same Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home.") Even the local inscription which is pictured in the article says nothing about a battle. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The chronicler Roger of Wendover says "829 When Egbert, King of the West Saxons, had obtained all the southern kingdoms of England, he led a large army into Northumbria, and laid waste that province with a severe pillaging, and made King Eanred pay tribute" (quoted from Whitelock, English Historical Documents), p. 255. Patrick Wormald refers to this on p. 129 of James Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons (1982), p. 139; he says this derives from earlier Northumbrian annals incorporated by Roger. Yorke (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 96) also mentions Roger but does not seem to believe his account entirely, saying it was more likely that there was a "mutual recognition of sovereignty". If Patrick Wormald believes a battle took place, that's a reliable source to base something on. Whether there's enough material for a separate article is debatable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed, Roger's account provides evidence of fighting led by Egbert in Northumbria, but it isn't evidence of a battle at a place called Dore, wherever that may have been. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article could be somewhat fleshed out, the photo of the monument is notable and confirms that a historical battle costing lives took place there which is good enough for me --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Reply: Er, no, the photo of the monument does not confirm that a historical battle took place. If you read what it says, there isn't a word about a battle or loss of lives. That is part of my point! There are no references for a battle at Dore, not even the monument there, which can be expected to err on the side of drama. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Further to keep above The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" So he moved an army, forced submission by force of arms and became overlord of all of England, how is that for a couple days/weeks work? As my comment above would like to see more about this specific military/political event being a history buff, but regardless, this is a keeper.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Moonraker2's point is not that the military campaign and submission did not happen, but that there is no evidence, even in the sources quoted, that a battle was fought at Dore. I agree; the little that the sources say is covered under Egbert of Wessex, with nothing left that would be specific to this article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Mike am confused are you saying the monument is some kind of a hoax? Again here is the transcription, bold is mine The stone says, quote "King Ecgbert of Wessex Led His Army To Dore In The Year A*D 829 Against King Eanred Of Northumbria By Whose Submission King Ecgbert Became First Overlord Of All England" No evidence? Looks pretty convincing to me.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Reply: We need to wonder why the writer uses those particular words. If there had ever been any evidence of a battle at Dore, then no doubt that monument would say so, because its whole purpose is to claim Dore has a historical significance. In fact, the monument rather evades the point. There are more-or-less reliable sources for fighting by Egbert in Northumbria, but this place called Dore isn't even in Northumbria. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle describes an event at Dore (which may or may not be the same Dore, these things can get very obscure, see Battle of Ethandun) which is not a battle but could be a treaty. You could compare the event with the Treaty of Wedmore, perhaps. Indeed, at this site I've found the following mention of a related article: "HOFFMAN, H.C., King Ecgbert and the Treaty of Dore (1969). Authoritative short study by a Dore-born historian, published as a follow-up to the unveiling of the Dore Stone." Moonraker2 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  First, the stone is not a reliable source. Judging from the site Moonraker2 links to, it is only 40 years old; it probably wasn't written by historians who had the text peer reviewed. Even if it were reliable it doesn't say there was a battle at Dore, only that Egbert led his army there. The only primary sources I know of that mention this are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Roger of Wendover; neither says there was a battle there. The ASC says there was a submission at Dore, which at least one historian comments was probably a meeting of equals; Roger says the province was laid waste, but does not mention Dore -- in fact his wording does not imply a localized battle, but rather a pillaging campaign. The reason for the deletion is not that nothing happened at Dore, but that there are no reliable sources that specifically describe a battle there. What happened there deserves to be covered in Wikipedia -- and indeed it is covered: in Egbert of Wessex. An article on "Submission to Egbert at Dore" would be a better shot, since there are secondary sources that describe that, but it would end up being merged to Egbert's article because it doesn't have enough content to stand alone. Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence whatsoever that there was a battle; and we can't have articles on events on the basis that they haven't been disproven. For all that the meeting was important it's difficult to see, what with the scarcity of sources, how an article on it could stand on its own. Declan Clam (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A treaty at a site does not make the site a battleground. A battle would seem to require evidence of armed combat, and the sources do not support that. The sealing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede similarly does not support an article on the "Battle of Runnymede." (Where did the name of the old game "Battledore" come from? Surely not some legendary "Battle of Dore?" Edison (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  Reply The OED doesn't suggest an origin for 'battledore', but the first instance it gives is "batyldoure, or wasshynge betylle", from c. 1440. Chambers's Etymological Dictionary says "perhaps Sp. batidor, a beater, a washing beetle". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of a battle and Egbert's domination is mentioned in his article. At the very least this article only adds confusion.--SabreBD (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - there is a better account at Dore (to which the battle article strangely doesn't even link), which quotes from Anglo Saxon Chronicle: "Egbert led an army against the Northumbrians as far as Dore, where they met him, and offered terms of obedience and subjection, on the acceptance of which they returned home". No battle. PamD (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Dore - There is no firm evidence for there being such a battle and the events are covered at Dore. Without verifiable sources this would violate our NPOV policy. Rje (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh

Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This assistant professor has an h-index in the single digits. His other claim to notability, being the CEO of Afranet, might be enough, but not in my opinion. I'll be nominating the company article too, since its claim to notability seems rather weak to me. Both articles were written by the same user, doubtlessly someone with a COI. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not a full professor, no major awards, no evidence of books edited or written, not a department chair, etc., thus fails WP:PROF. As stated elsewhere, h-index does little for me. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What is "seems" to Abductive isn't in the list of reasons for deletion, neither is COI (please feel free to read about COI and deletion, Abductive), until a reason for deletion is given, CEO of Afranet fine, keep. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a puff-page. Article makes much out of his publications ("has published more than 10 academic papers", "has about 100 articles in the media and has held dozens of conferences and seminars", etc.) and then even goes on to list the numbers of claimed citations for these. Yet, WoS shows 5 articles, only 2 of which he's lead author on, for an over h-index of only 2. This asst professor's article falls squarely into the "too soon" bin. I also can't see how merely being the head of an ISP in Iran confers notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
• Delete, searches confirm that there is nothing here close to WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brand Tire Company

Big Brand Tire Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Big Brand Tire Company" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable local company lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I am unable to locate any documents which would establish the notability of this company. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no significant coverage online, article is similar to other creations by Special:Contributions/BusinessBios. MuffledThud (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, unsourced. Hairhorn (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This company is notable in So. Cal. but without a lot of fanfare about themselves in the press and deserves to stay. I will add additional sources to their citations. It's a bitty, non-advertorial article about who they are and what they do. They get a lot of searches and should stay present here. Still working on getting better MuffledThud :-)BusinessBios ~~BusinessBios~~ —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all four. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy

Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not WP:Verifiable if not an outright WP:HOAX. At the very least, not notable. No hits on any Google channel that aren't self-placed or a cover page with nothing behind it. See a page of the Boston University School of Theology where an attempt to place an article was rejected on the grounds of non-verifiability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages by the same author for similar reasons:

Coalition 98 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NCCL-DWCMP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

27. November Spreadsheet Macro Programming Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Regarding the last item, I find no evidence of magazines named ProxyWeek or Control Panel Jockey. Also, the German date style (27. November) used in the name of this purported American club isn't used in the United States—but it's the style that the author uses in all four articles. (Another editor changed it to US style in the CCRPP article.) This may be evidence of a hoax. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also its website is empty as are ccrpp.org and ccrpp.com. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy. It's a one sentence sub-stub with almost no content and it's unsourced. I haven't reviewed the other articles. I have no opinion on them. Royalbroil 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can see a longer version in here when it was rejected at AfC exactly two years ago. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Bizarre—the Boston University page I mentioned was a copy of that. It's weird what kind of Wikipedia mirrors there are out there. It's like, why is there a Wikipedia mirror on a website called Absolute Astronomy? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all four as hoaxes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not a single Nexis result for any of the terms except Coalition 98, which produces 48 unrelated mentions. Even if this web of organisations exists (I'm not convinced), they seem to be unverifiable and non-notable. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gail Collins (disambiguation)

Gail Collins (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Gail Collins (disambiguation)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete Unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No need for this page, and not a likely redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Boleyn (disambiguation)

George Boleyn (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "George Boleyn (disambiguation)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete, unnecessary page per MOS:DAB. Already a hatnote on clear primary to only other entry. I mistakenly created this page when I unbderstood less about disambiguation pages, and I think I also created the article for George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield, who only just meets the notability guidelines - certainly the queen's brother is by far the primary. Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Use a hat instead. Why is this for AFD? It's not an article but a disambiguation. SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment it was de-prodded, reason given: 'two blue links'. There's debate about where to take dabs past that point, but AfD is often used. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Mediator (short film)

The Mediator (short film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Mediator (short film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested Prod of a Non-Notable movie. Ridernyc (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete — No sources, nothing on Google Search/News that can be considered reliable, nothing on IMDb. Fails WP:FILMNOT. Favonian (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this WP:FILM. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep The Tossers, what would Wikipedia do without them. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Tossers

The Tossers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Tossers" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

• fails WP:BAND Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Tours confer notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What tours? Where are the reliable sources that describe these tours? WP:BAND says: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Where can we read this non-trivial coverage? Dlabtot (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Blows past WP:MUSIC with releases on Thick Records and Victory Records. These guys are second-tier to Dropkick Murphys and Flogging Molly; they've been around for so long that I never expected anyone would think to bring them here. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if they are as notable as you say there must exist some reliable sources to verify that. see WP:BURDEN. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. If you think the article lacks citations, {{sofixit}}. An encyclopedia without an article on this band isn't an encyclopedia I'd want to contribute to. Chubbles (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked for citations, and didn't find any that were independent of the subject. I tried to fix it but I dont think it is fixable therefore I nominated it for deletion. You don't seem to have read WP:BURDEN as I suggested. You certainly have the choice to not contribute to Wikipedia instead of simply adding the sources to the article that you claim exist. Since you seem to be a fan of this band, I'd respectfully submit that you are a better candidate to WP:SOFIXIT than I - since I already tried. Dlabtot (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If Dlabtot wants independent citations perhaps Dlabtot should try looking at The Tossers album articles. [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic.com is a service that lists ALL MUSIC, not just notable music. It is not a reliable source for establishing notability. See prior discussions on this topic: [10], [11], [12] Dlabtot (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well...no. Allmusic attempts to catalog ALL MUSIC, and so has simple, machine-fed discographical information for anything sent to it. However, it only writes biographies and reviews for artists, albums, and songs it considers worthy of remark, and has published several books of such material. It is one reliable source which may be brought to bear to hurdle the WP:GNG along with other sources, but often serves as a single reliable source to verify that an artist passes one or more criteria of WP:MUSIC (which it does). I've not lifted a finger here because I believe this case to be so self-evident that it should not merit the adding of a raft of needless citations, and I am banking that the community at large could not possibly be so blind as to miss this. I don't actually much like this band at all, but I certainly recognize the value of the page. Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't base Wikipedia articles on what editors consider to be "self-evident", we base them on citations to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Those prior discussions do not back up your claim that Allmusic is not a reliable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I made no such claim, what I said was that it's not a reliable source for establishing notability, argued by myself and others in those discussions. Your willful mischaracterization of my comments and those discussions is discouraging. Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that Allmusic is a reliable source but is not a reliable source for establishing notability? (ps your lack of good faith is discouraging) Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debates has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Chubbles – easily meets our notability guidelines. Plenty of coverage can be found:
  • Harris, Michael C. (March 10, 2004). "Feeling lucky, punk?", Chicago Tribune, p. 34.
  • Downing, Andy (October 7, 2005). "Tossers get their Irish up preserving city culture in song", Chicago Tribune, p. 22.
  • Pizek, Jeff (December 30, 2005). "The Tossers keep Irish groove, stay true to heavier side", Daily Herald, p. 8.
  • Sauer, Rachel (March 6, 2006). "Tony of The Tossers Speaks Volumes", Palm Beach Post, p. D1.
  • McGuire, Matt (May 11, 2008). "Shamrock shuffle", Chicago Tribune, p. 41.
    • ... and so on... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you apparently have access to these sources, it would be very helpful if you'd incorporate them into the article, rather than just list them here. Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Chubbles and Paul Erik. Meets category 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Moved to userpace. A bit of IAR. Since the article creator is a new user + the article was clearly not ready for mainspace, I have moved it to his [[userspace after discussion with him. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale voip business

Wholesale voip business (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Wholesale voip business" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

delete, spam article. Nothing supports inclusion or even attempts to explain how it's notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect and salt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mortgage Basics

Mortgage Basics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mortgage Basics" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

All the information found here can also be found in the much better article mortgage Tresiden (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. Rubbishy article created by a spammer. andy (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to the mortgage article, which better covers the same material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tried redirecting but the author reverted. andy (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• The very reason I brought it here. :) Tresiden (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect and salt. From the reference to Peru and the quality of the language, I suspect this is a babelfish translation of a copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon Search By Price

Amazon Search By Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Amazon Search By Price" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable browser add-on, recently released and described as "experimental". Fails WP:N. andy (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence of notability. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this Firefox add-on. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The website is clearly notable, and a feature like this is probably in heavy use, but I cannot see that there is much to write about it, or that any readers would care. Searching by price is a common feature on shopping and advert websites, and there is nothing to indicate that Amazon is unique in that regard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdraws, no delete !votes, bad nomination Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indecision (band)

Indecision (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Indecision (band)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No real notability shown. sourcing suggests aritcle is claiming notability based in large part on the death of tens of thousands of unrelated people. Every other source is primary. Such disgusting claim to notability is ... Other possible claim to notability is Justin Brannan. His notability depends on being a member of this band and of Most Precious Blood. The notability of both rely on his notability which is based on the notability of his bands. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating Brannan's own page and his other bands page:

Justin Lee Brannan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Most Precious Blood (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all. Most Precious Blood (band) rather spectacularly passes WP:MUSIC, with three releases on Trustkill Records and plenty of third-party coverage (Here's their AMG profile, for starters). Indecision also has an AMG profile and several album reviews, got a review in Maximum Rocknroll, was a top 5 metal act in CMJ in 2000, and so forth... Brannan might normally be a target for redirection to Most Precious Blood, but as the member of two notable bands, there is no single redirect target and so it's reasonable for him to have an article of his own. Chubbles (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Disgust and spam missed before. Bad nom. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator NW (Talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tsuhan Chan

Tsuhan Chan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tsuhan Chan" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unsourced BLP that doesn't clarify why the subject would meet WP:ACADEMIC. As an aside, the article was created by a WP:SOCK of a banned user. Gazimoff 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criterion G5 (created by banned user with little substantive input by anyone else). Even if that didn't apply, I still don't see how this meets the notability guideline for academics, and any unsourced BLP is always a bad thing to have around. *** Crotalus *** 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It now has some substantive edits from me, and several reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious keep as an IEEE fellow, one of the explicit criteria of WP:PROF, which was already confirmed by the faculty profile linked in the article before nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Along with the IEEE Fellow, he passes a different criterion of WP:PROF, #1, due to his six papers with over 100 citations each. He has also received some media attention for his research, which I added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also WP:PROF #8 as eic of IEEE Trans. Multimedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It is hard to understand the reasons to delete this page as presently edited. Would the nominator of the AfD care to expand on his reasons in case something has been missed. Has the nominator studied WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

  The nominator has studied WP:BEFORE. The nominator also understands that the subject's surname was incorrectly spelt, and is actually Chen, which is why the nominator found no sources. The nominator will be withdrawing the AfD now that this is corrected and well sourced, but the nominator also doesn't apprectaite smart-ass comments. Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Boy (2009 film)

Boy (2009 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Boy (2009 film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No evidence of notability User234 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per #2 of the film notability guide - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival. Screened at at least 7 festivals, many of them having WP articles too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE - I've now sourced most of them too. Google is your friend. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't add part of the criteria: "at least five years after initial release.". Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The full text is The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - I read that as the commerical re-release after 5 years OR screened in a festival. Find me one film that was screened at a festival and then screened again at another festival 5 years later. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist that sentence around; its very clear: A) film is given a commercial re-release, OR B) screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. User234 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You've read it wrong, otherwise no-one could create an article for a 2009 film until 2014. Lugnuts (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is if you base notability only on No. 2. What if notability is established outright by No. 1 or No. 3? You can write an article for a 2009 article right here, right now if that's the case. Problem is, you focus only on No. 2, trying to justify the existence of this Boy article on that sole line (and twisting it at that) for your benefit. User234 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly twisting it. The policy asks for one of the points, not x AND y. Your original comment of "no evidence of notability" just simply isn't true, as I've already proven. There's also the blurb on the film notability page that reads "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is covered in the number of refs I've added around screening and censorship.Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP It is so strange we become so touchy about a film whose subject matter doesn't suit our agenda or values, so we stick deletion notes to them. If the film "Boy" has been screened at Outfest Los Angles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Jeonju International Film Festival in South Korea (Asian premiere), Toronto ImagineNative Film & Media Arts Festival in Toronto (Canadian premiere), Image+Nation Montreal, Frameline Film Festival (San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival), Seattle International Film Festival and was banned in Singapore because of its subject matter and is creating hell with a host of countries and is praised in others worthy of seeing by all means and is having a highly expected commercial release in Philippines for a very noteworthy director, how can we nominate this as an insignificant film? Just to avoid a deletion request, we had also, in addition to lengthy number of festivals shown, also included 8 independent media sources links / references / sources that all talk about the film. There are interviews with the director, discussion of the issues it brings to the viewer... Just read this one single review: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/166505/Filipino-film-Boy-captures-hearts-in-San-Francisco There are tens of films added every day. What I feel is Filipino and gay put together didn't suit your agenda and you got fixated on deleting to any link to this worthwhile film on Wikipedia. By the way I saw the movie here in Montreal and I strongly suggest you see it yourself before passing value judgement. It took hours of research to prepare the page with participations in festivals and independent references just to prove its singnificance. In fact the above discussion I just read proves clearly how narrowly you see things. How about others having their say in this instead of you turning it into a tit-for-tat discussion issue. werldwayd (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable via more than adequate coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There are already a good number of English language sources. Presumably there are many many more Filippino sources - this should have been discussed with the Philippines and Singaporean projects to ask for help with foriegn language sourcing before even thinking of deletion.YobMod 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Buckhaven town afc

Buckhaven town afc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Buckhaven town afc" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete, non notable small sport conference Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, though from a fairly large city, is does not meet specific notability guidelines listed under WikiProject Football. By their definition, if not in the standard level 1-15 standard a team must be the highest level of national grouping. An amateur soccer league in one city is far below that standard. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedantic comment - The league's in Fife, which is a county in Scotland, not a city. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - To confer notability, a Scottish team would have to play in at least the Third Division or the Scottish Cup. They've done neither. (Incidentally, the division they play in isn't notable enough for its own article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for the specifics on which do count. My logic was that, since it's just a city there's no way it could be a league of sufficient level to count as "national". Since there's no official 1-15 marked for it it's kind of a guess job. ...And yes, I figured the team wasn't notable because their division wasn't. The collection of junk in the football catacombs is massive and I'll be glad to have 1 less thing. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - very non-notable club. Note that hailing "from a fairly large city" has no bearing on a club's notability - there are literally hundreds of football clubs in London or Manchester or Birmingham, most of which are completely non-notable. I live in Birmingham and a quick search on the FA's website suggests there are at least 30 men's football clubs just within 2 miles of my house....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable team. GiantSnowman 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable team Steve-Ho (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. • Anakin ^(talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sue Gardner

Sue Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sue Gardner" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

DELETE. While I am excited for Sue Gardner that she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, I am not seeing notability in terms of how Wikipedia defines it. The articles listed below, which do make mention of her by name, are primarily surrounding the issue of Jimmy Wales supposedly filing inappropriate expense reports, with only passing coverage on Gardner if any. JBsupreme (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep without respect to which organization it is, the ED of an organization with major internet impact is notable . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - she was just nominated in the Huffington Post for Ultimate Media Game Changer. The ED of the Wikimedia foundation, that runs the 8th most visited website in the world, is clearly notable. Majorly talk 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Don't be ridiculous. Clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:BIO. Steven Walling 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. The article may have been well sourced before, but it was tiny and uninformative. JBsupreme is right, a number of the 'references' had almost no information about Gardner. I added a few paragraphs and better sources, but it still needs work. +sj+ 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep The current references aren't great - we have her own LinkedIn profile and agency profile, two WMF press releases and a blog, none of which really count towards notability. The two remaining references are something, but not much. I can believe that the sources are out there, but we don't have them yet. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. In charge of the organization that runs the sixth most visited site on the internet. If this were any other organization as significant as Wikipedia it would be absolutely ludicrous to propose deleting its top executive. Common sense is allowed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While I may not have edited in a very long time, while I disagree with some of her decisions, and while I often support a stricter approach to what is defined as encyclopedic, this is ridiculous. Would anyone even consider deleting Eric Schmidt or Carol Bartz? Danny (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Her nomination by the Huffington Post "as one of ten 'media game changers of the year' for the impact on new media of her work for Wikimedia" would, alone, satisfy any notability concerns. A search for "Sue Gardner" wikimedia raises 11,000 hits. Let's move on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Get a life keep. Lampman (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Snow Keep clearly.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DrawPile

DrawPile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "DrawPile" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unremarkable software product, no third party citations to establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BURDEN, claims need to be backed up by the author. This appears to be Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill software. Miami33139 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Goloubef

Cody Goloubef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Cody Goloubef" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally. Fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This level of player has been routinely deleted in the past. DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the notability standards of the hockey WikiProject; not particularly distinguished college player.  RGTraynor  16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, based on article. Comment I was curious. There are 38,900 hits on Google for this guy. Has his own fan club on Facebook even. And whoever put the article on Wikipedia can't write more than a stub. Alaney2k (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played at the highest professional level.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Show=Tarou Harada

Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2009 October 29" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Procedural nom. Original prod stated "As his only work, Na Na Na Na for which he is even remotaly known fails WP:BK, i believe he fails WP:BIO." Prod removed by IP with note of "Clearly states in 1st line that that isn't his only work." However, Harada clearly fails fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Of his two works, one is only marginally notable in that it has an anime adaptation, though no actual significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He is known for other things as well. Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess are the only things he has listed in his article, both of them appearing quite notable, but his website list dozens of other things he has done as well. Anyone look into that yet? Dream Focus 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove he is notable by showing coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not what he himself says about himself? And considering you discounted his saying his name is Show=Tarou Harada (published name), versus Shotaro Harada (what ANN listed),[13] it would seem you are being selective in deciding what he can be considered reliable about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One of his series was populate enough to be made into an anime. He is a notable enough manga writer. Dream Focus 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, prove it. One manga getting an anime series does not make the manga's author notable per Wikipedia guidelines, which are still what we follow here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That guideline is just a suggestion, you suppose to think for yourself. Common sense says if the writer produced a manga that sold well enough to make an anime, which survived for multiple seasons, they must be notable, since their work was clearly notable. Policies must be accepted, not the suggested guidelines. WP:IAR has an interesting statement in it from Jimmy Wales himself, about how Ignore All Rules has always been part of Wikipedia, and a key factor to remain. Wikipedia is about consensus and common sense, not rules. Think for yourself, and stop quoting guidelines. Dream Focus 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore all rules does not mean that you can ignore policies or guidelines simply because you don't like or agree with them. Perhaps you should go back and reread WP:IAR, especially this line: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every action is justified, but you can't make your decisions entirely based on the ever changing guidelines. It says Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Collectonian and WP:DIRECTORY under Genealogical entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my original prod. While D4 Princess might be notable, the other is not and just having 1 series be made into an anime doesn't make it likely you'll have more info on the author unless they are extremely popular which isn't the case here.陣内_Jinnai 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A1 - article with no context at all. Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article does identify its subject, so it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A1. —Farix (t | c) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response No, it dosen't. There's dispute over the name of the person identified by the article. Hipocrite (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No one is questioning who this person is, just the best way to write his name. Everyone involved knows that they are talking about the creator of the manga Na Na Na Na and D4 Princess. Calathan (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not notable enough.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Na Na Na Na

Na Na Na Na (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Na Na Na Na" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Deprodded by IP with not of "item has been licensed", but this does not confer notability. Original prod had reason of "item has been listed as unnotable for almsot a year. It still fails to pass WP:BK. The author himself ilso unnotable and it is unlikely that the series ever will be notable." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have dealt with the link rot on this article. -- allen四names 08:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you added archive links to dead sites which have been removed as not being in keeping with WP:EL which are only for live active official sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Extremely trivial mention by ANN fails WP:NOTE. Only one review found at Mania.com were they panned the first volume so hard that they didn't bother to do a followup review for the second volume. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with TheFarix. After reading the review that TheFarix linked here I no longer see any point in keeping this article. -- allen四names 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I added in a reception section. Notice the glowing review a reliable source gave it? Googling its name in English or Japanese shows a massive number of results, so surely more references could be found. Dream Focus 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Which is a publisher provided summary from the back of the book. Also Anime News Network's encyclopedia is user edited and is neither reliable or an indicator of notability as it is a directory. And how many times do we have to tell that the number of Google hit is irrelevant? —Farix (t | c) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per my original prod.陣内_Jinnai 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mink (manga)

Mink (manga) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mink (manga)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only one extremely brief review on Manga-News which may not even be a review[14] Prod removed by IP with not of "has been licensed", however being licensed does not give instant notability to any manga series. Despite its being licensed and fully released in English and French, again no significant coverage has been found, just the single 2-3 sentence "review" already noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is an old manga series so I understand why alot wouldnt be online about it and as much as the Otaku in me wants to keep the article it does not meet notability (If it has been around this long and people forgot it that fast it isnt notable in my point of view). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I would prefer to keep this article but I have to agree with the nominator about it's notability. -- allen四names 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage in French or so, i checked 5 French RS websites. The manga-news review is an user submitted one not a staff one, to answer Collectonian. English coverage isn't better i found nothing RS. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Lack of obvious online review sources in English is not a valid reason to delete. The massive number of hits Google gets, prove it is at least well known. Anime News Network list it. Dream Focus 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Anime News Network's Encyclopedia is a user edited directory. So it is neither reliable or an indicator of notability as it is a directory. And how many times do we have to tell that the number of Google hit is irrelevant? —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The thing you can use google for is first making sure none of the links are wikipedia related links, then use what you can find as possible references. Total amount of hits mean nothing because some of them could reference wikipedia, while others are possible fansites. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a close argument, somewhere near the border of delete and no consensus. I am swayed to the delete arguments that despite the multiple sources, the totality of coverage is not sufficient to show notability. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Joseph Cormier 3rd

Ray Joseph Cormier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ray Joseph Cormier" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Totally NN individual. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment -- looking at the references, it seems there are quite a few articles giving him extensive coverage (I'm drawing that implication from looking at the titles). I can see coming to the conclusion that he seems unimportant from what the text of the article here says, but that's not how we usually approach the question of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I should have looked more closely at the talk page first -- my apologies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am assuming you are asking editors to look closely at the BLP talk in depth before coming to a conclusion concerning this nomination for deletion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Let it be noted! Hipocrite, who initiated this 3rd attempt at Deletion, initiated the process in March of this year and in February. I have to question his NPOV? There was no consensus the last time, and KEEP before that. Since the numerous references are pre-internet, unless an Editor has access to a pay newspaper archive site, they cannot be found easily. The subject, me, has offered to e-mail all the references listed and more, to any editor willing to take a look at them and try to improve the article.

Looking at an old version of this article, and it has undergone many changes, [15] while all the detailed information in it contained cannot be used because of Wikipedia policy on verifiable newspaper references, all the information is 100% factual in the biography of this living person. Steve Smith, Wikipedia´s resident expert in BLP´s, stated he would be working on improving it more this week. Perhaps Hipocrite just wants to jump the gun before it is made better? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response DoDaCanaDa's statement is not accurate. I nominated this article for deletion once before, on the same grounds. It was kept because improvements were promised. Improvement did not happen, and, if promised here, should be taken with an 8 month grain of salt. There is, additionally, a further level of care with respect of biographies of totally-NN people who have had passing mentions for winning jam contests now than there was in February, regardless of their desire for a self-aggrandizing "biography." Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unless I am misreading the initial comment in the first attempt at deletion, it was started by Hipocrite. The record is the record. If I am mistaken on this, my sincere apology. DoDaCanaDa (talk)

• Weak keep, as with my vote in the last nomination. There's coverage here from a variety of reliable sources. If the subject wanted deletion, I'd delete, but here the subject clearly doesn't. Steve Smith (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The opinion of the subject here is moot; there is a sizable number of reliable sources. Many of them are 30 years old, and appear to be print-only, but they still exist. The article itself has improved some since the last time it has been nominated, but overall it has been a terrible WP:COI-magnet for its own subject, and still suffers from a lack of outside attention from people who are uninvolved with the subject. That, however, is a cleanup issue, there is nothing with the tone of the article that cannot be cleaned up. The sources exist, so the subject is likely notable. In the interest of full disclosure, I was invited here by DoDaCanaDa. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment When you say "invited," what you mean is "canvassed against policy due to your prior keep vote," correct? Should your !vote be disregarded, in your opinion, or are you going to warn Mr. Cormier to stop violating WP:CANVASS (again) and neutral messages out to a diverse pool of editors who may be interested in this AFD? Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • On which: I have posted here to the COI noticeboard about rampant canvassing and ceaseless COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• will someone please explain to me the difference for contacting those editors who previously took an interest in this article and this official tag bot sent to another editor here User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier When the Afd tag appeared yesterday, according to Wikipedia traffic statistics, 53 Wikipedians looked at the article,up from only 1 or 2 viewers a day, and only Nomoskedasticity left a comment. All I asked from those Editors I contacted in a permissible ¨friendly notice¨ was to ¨take a look¨ In the interest of balance, and not to be in violation of canvassing, I will inform the same number of editors who registered a delete in the previous Afd. I assure everyone this will be my last comment on this Adf until a consensus is reached.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I will not register an opinion here, as I informed DoDaCanaDa on my talk page, due to possible canvassing. --Danger (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of news stories about him from back in the day. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you the same as notified here? --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete. There *is* coverage but it's very minor coverage over a long period and doesn't add up to an awful lot. You could construct an article for anyone on that basis - hell, I could have an article on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I am going by these policies for my iVote to delete They are WP:N though as stated below notability has to be shown in reliable sources as a news article not in human interest stories, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VANITY & also if neede WP:IAR. To me this article is not notable nor does it meet policies/guidelines. I am i'Voting also per comments made by Cameron Scott, User:Atama, User:Johnuniq The main users that had the most to offer me during this is User:DoDaCanaDa and User:Steve Smith Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - The number of references to reliable sources almost caused me to make a kneejerk "keep" argument. Normally I would say that they would clinch this as an establishment of notability. But I looked into the long discussion on the talk page, and the last two AfDs. Particularly compelling was something that KillerChihuahua said in the first deletion discussion:

I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability.

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greek-Ecuadorians

Greek-Ecuadorians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Greek-Ecuadorians" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Prodded article, where tag was removed. The article covers people "that share common lineage involving Ecuador and Greece", without suggesting why such an ethnic group would be be notable. One could imagine a near-infinite number of X-Y-ians, so there should probably be a reason for this article if we are to keep it. This particular grouping would appear to be non-notable (nothing to the contrary found via google), and the fact that "Ecuador contains a tiny community of Greek-Ecuadorians" is already mentioned in Demographics of Ecuador. Bfigura ^(talk) 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The scant information is already cited in the Demographics of Ecuador article. Warrah (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Grecuadorians don't seem to be a very large group. According to the source in Greek diaspora, there are twenty (I find that hard to believe). No evidence of a sizeable or notable community. Mandsford (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is almost devoid of information, and substantially all the Google hits for this term are for Wikipedia or mirror sites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Klein (businessman)

Samuel Klein (businessman) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Samuel Klein (businessman)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unsourced BLP. Originally translated from the Portugese Wikipedia article that is also unsourced. Gazimoff 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mild keep, clearly notable in Brazil. Citations added; more would be welcome. I appreciate the effort going into cleaning up BLPs, but we need a better method than listing them on AfD. I've seen a number of clearly notable articles listed here -- especially on topics that are more famous outside of the English-language web. In many places we're countering systemic bias as coverage improves, but not [yet] on AfD. +sj+ 20:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty more sources available amongst these books and these scholarly papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable, founder of the largest retail chain in Brazil and a pioneer of 'low-end' retailing in the developing world. There is a biography of him in Portuguese, Samuel Klein e Casas Bahia : uma trajetória de sucesso, which went to a 2nd edition. I also added a couple of English-lang sources to the article, including a front-page Wall Street Journal profile. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Gudenus

John Gudenus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "John Gudenus" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Thinly sourced BLP that currently fails criteria for inclusion under WP:BLP1E Gazimoff 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As a former member of the Federal Council of Austria he would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  If they are a politician, it needs sourcing accurately sourcing per WP:V. Additionally, exceptional claims (holocaust denial) require exceptional sources i.e. more than one. Many thanks, Gazimoff 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  The source in the article verifies it. He's not a politician. He is a former politician, but he still pases the WP:POLITICIAN criteria: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." (Which Chris Johnson already brought up). There are plenty more sources in this Google News search that verifies it also. Here is another source that verifies holocaust denial. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  If they are valid sources, they need to be added to the article and not just listed here. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  This Google News search verifies the holocaust denial with lots of sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I think he's marginally notable, per WP:POLITICIAN but this article will always suffer from WP:UNDUE issues and I don't think we'll ever be in a position to balance it out. Rght now, it seems to only exist to say 'zOMG holocaust denier!!' and little else - Alison ^❤ 22:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. There's no undue weight issue if the sourcing happens to focus on issues with him surrounding holocaust denial. By definition, something is undue weight if the weight doesn't reflect the weight of sourcing available. That's not an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm just going to point out that while the English language sources almost exclusively focus on the Holocaust denial issue, I'm sure the German sources provide a more complete picture of his political career. He was the equivalent of a senator; there have to be articles about his campaign and early days in office. I'm just not linguistically competent to find them. --Chris Johnson (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, then that's an editorial issue not an issue for AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a member of a national parliament. This is not even remotely borderline. Other factors about his career are irrelevant here. We have considerable experience in editing even difficult articles. The principle that a member of parliament is notable is so well established that I am cannot follow the logic of the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Politician isn't at stake here - I agree that if it's a sourced fact then it's completely valid. But having a controversial BLP reliant on a single source that itself is part of a European roundup just isn't right. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I there are other sources out there, they need to be added. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jayron32 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast

Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. However, my google-fu has been weak with this one and I'm happy to consider withdrawing if WP:PROF can be demonstrated through adequate sourcing. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazimoff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• 'Keep' Weak Keep -- see below -- As even the GScholar link shows , very extensive publication record in major international journals, with good citations. Meets WP:PROF. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, these need to be pulled out and the key ones identified. If they're relevant, they should be added to the article. Just coming here with a GScholar link doesn't really help. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't apply to the way academic citations get discussed in relation to WP:PROF. If his work is widely cited, he's notable by PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Comment, I'm getting an h-index of 26. However, he cites himself more than average. His work looks descriptive to me. Can the nominator explain why the google-fu was weak? Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. WoS shows > 250 entries with h-index of 25. He may self-cite to some degree (I have not checked), but these two numbers indicate he does not self-cite in most of his papers, otherwise his h-index would be much higher. (For example, if he cited every previous paper in every new one, his h-index would be about 250/2 = 125.) Clear pass on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
• Comment I redid the search in Scopus, which is much more exact for this sort of purpose than GS. It should give the same result as WoS, and it does: 269 papers, highest citations 43, 37 ,35, 34. pharmacology is a field where people publish a great many papers, so the count is not quite as spectacular as it would be in other subjects, but it remains very good. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of self citation, for his highest ranking paper,((1996) European Journal of Pharmacology, 298 (1), pp. 1-6.) about half the citations are to other papers of his, Following that: second highest, 1/2; third, 1/20; 4th, 2/3; 5th 1/20 -- so there is a good deal of variation. I accordingly changed to Weak Keep, above, because this is considerably more extensive than one ordinarily finds. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Can these references be added to the article to ensure that the claims are accurately sourced (in particular "Zarrindast is among top most productive Iranian researchers"). If thet happens, I'm happy to consider withdrawing the nom and closing the AfD. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but expand the article and modify as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unambiguous copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bamboo massage

Bamboo massage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bamboo massage" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article is apparently a copyvio based on an exact Google search of the first four paragraphs[16] but the said paragraphs (or any content on the article) does not appear on the website www.massagekits.com.au (first Google result and indicated link on the article); probably deleted on the site's page since another topic in similar format appears at the bottom of that site, but was found on a cached version[17] of that page as of Oct. 20 '09. E Wing (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, criterion G12 (tagged) - content appears identical to this cached version of one of the pages linked above. A copyright notice is given. Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global product

Global product (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Global product" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article, as it stands, IMO contains nothing that merits a separate article. The author has, without explanation, removed a PROD as well as a redirect to Global marketing#Product. Personally, I would prefer the redirect, but failing that I propose deletion. Favonian (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is someone's homework. Whether it's a class project will depend on whether we start seeing more "global product" articles being turned in before Friday's class. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as proposed. Complete bollocks: A global product is a product that can be useful all over the world. It is recognizable as a solution for a generic equivalent problem which is not dependent of any localized parameters. A global product must be explained by only showing a picture. For example a paperclip. A global product need Global Marketing for international trade and development.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and perhaps merge the littel additional content to the Product section of Global Marketing. If there ends up enough content in that section for a separate page, then split it out. Nicolai (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as proposed in nom. As Mandsford said, probably somebody's homework. Much of it is also complete bollocks. I don't see much worth merging for, but if there is, might as well be partially merged, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect as proposed and strongly oppose any merge as none of this material is sourced or even remotely plausibly accurate -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Web visions

Web visions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Web visions" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

There have been a few attempts to csd this, and a failed attempt to afd it. I can not find sources for this. The novinite.com article is obviously a press release, and the company website is now a parked domain. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable Internet Explorer variant, referenced to press releases if at all. Google News ain't going to help you with a name like that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability + no sources = no article. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional article/ no article- useless not notable. Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ulleskelf Vikings

Ulleskelf Vikings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ulleskelf Vikings" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Tenth-tier football club from non-notable league, non-notable per WP:NSPORT and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Clubs, unreliable references per WP:RS, zero hits on Google News search, zero hits on ordinary Google search for "Ulleskelf Vikings". MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Up and coming football team soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine. No reason for deletion. User:ilfenomeno 11:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.19.67 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Sunday league teams are pretty much inherently non-notable. Additionally, the league they play in is not at the tenth level of the English football league system, I can guarantee that they don't play in a 5,000-capacity stadium, and I can find no trace of a "Josh Rose" having played for any of the clubs mentioned, so it's not looking good for the believability of anything in the article. Oh, and "soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine", even if it's true, is unlikely to be enough to pass the GNG and is also blatant crystal ballery (I'm skeptical as to why the mag would even do an article on a newly-formed Sunday league team, but maybe I'll be proved wrong if said article ever does appear......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - if this club ever rises high enough to be considered notable the article can be re-created, however at the moment there is no notablility at all. The league they are in is certainly not the tenth tier of the English league system and as ChrisTheDude has found no verifying information about the only former professional player everything about it looks dubious. The comment that the club is set to appear in FourFourTwo magazine does not mean that the club becomes notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — a purely local phenomenon, no way close to meeting the requirements for notability. Report back when the visions seen in the crystal ball come true. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I may be overstepping the mark but I get the feeling that if this article does end up being deleted then it will just crop up again anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, local low-level amateur team. GiantSnowman 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage to show notability. Much of current article looks like a hoax. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Chris says it all for me. (I also find it bizarre that FourFourTwo would do an article on a Sunday league team, considering they rarely cover anything in England below the Championship.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on above statement - I think the defender of this article is saying this more out of hope than any kind of fact, although I may be wrong. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - No coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iraq – United States relations. Some material may be suitable for Saddam Hussein as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein – United States relations

Saddam Hussein – United States relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Saddam Hussein – United States relations" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I propose to either delete this page or redirect to Iraq – United States relations. I tried to redirect, on the grounds that previously several editors have pointed out problems with the article and the article location and proposed to either merge or redirect to Iraq-United States relations. A merge tag was on the article for almost a year, with one editor promising on the talk page to move some of the information from this article to the Iraq-United States article. Nothing has really happened in almost a year, except that the same editor removed the merge tag a few weeks ago. There seems to be a rough consensus for a merge or redirect, if one takes into account that consensus is decided by better arguments, and not by a majority vote (several editors who opposed a merge did not explain their reasoning).

So much for the editing history of the article. The reasons why this article should be deleted or redirected are as follows: 1. There is already an article that deals with the joint history of the US and Iraq at Iraq – United States relations. Countries have relations, but not countries and individuals. We do not have and should not have articles on Margaret Thatcher-United States relations or Sese Mobutu-United States relations.

2. This article has some serious POV problems as is already clear from the first introductory sentence, which establishes as fact what is in reality controversial. Some sources are problematic (UPI is not a reliable source by any standards - and it is the only source for the claims that Hussein was backed by the CIA around 1960) and some sources are quoted selectively. Even more problematic is the ommission of viewpoints that are contrary. It is instructive to look at this source (convenience link to a Reuters article), where it is said that "But many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s." Little of that can be found in this article. It is telling that so many sources are of a shoddy quality, or are openly partisan, when it fact many academic books and articles have been written about US-Iraqi relations and Saddam Hussein. In the end there is little to nothing that should be kept as it is, making a merge not a good option. Pantherskin (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Short summary: 1. Not a viable topic as the proper topic would be Iraq – United States relations, which already exists. 2. Merge is not an option due to the low quality of the article and POV and sourcing problems. Pantherskin (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - There is enough reliably sourced information on this article not present on the other. This information should first be transferred, not deleted completely, which is what the nominator repeatedly tried to do. Dynablaster (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere This is as true a violation of WP:NPOV as I've ever seen-- basically, a retelling of the events described in the Saddam Hussein article, but from America's point of view. No matter how neutral a tone the article is written in, every step of the way on the story of Saddam, the question "What did that mean to the United States?" is asked and answered. I'm reluctant to say delete on a copiously researched article, and someone has put a lot of work into this. On the other hand, I think much of it could be merged into Saddam Hussein in a shortened form. I would say the same for "Fidel Castro - USSR relations" or "Adolf Hitler - Great Britain relations" or "Saddam Hussein - Iran relations". All of history's stories could be retold from another point of view, but that doesn't mean that we should have another article from a different perspective.